Search
1000 results for “inta”
-
Zo, de #intake is achter de rug, en de eerste les ook. Dit #taalmaatje spreekt redelijk goed, ze is alleen wat slordig. Aan mij de taak om dat binnen zes maanden op te lossen. #taalcoach #taalhuis #amstelland #Amstelveen
-
CW: Star Trek microfiction inspired by TNG in-take, alcohol misuse reference (1600+ chars long)
Setting the scene is this #inTake (an out-take that's been edited back into the original clip) from #StarTrek #TheNextGeneration: https://youtu.be/qsVO9EPhpFc (Ryan's Edits: Star Trek INtakes #143, "Riker Rolls With It".)
"Damn it", Geordi muttered to himself as he headed towards the turbolift, "this is the last time I'm going to haul his drunk ass home again... He knows he can't handle his Romulan Ale."
"Computer, location of Commander Riker?", Geordi asked with a sigh, as the turbolift doors whooshed open.
"Commander Riker is in Shuttle Bay 2," the computer answered.
"Huh, I guess the drunken fool thought he could pop off to Risa... again... good thing we installed those breathalysers after the last time; don't want to have yet another incident like we had with that Vidiian ambassador... he really got under her skin."
Geordi chuckled to himself at the pun, but then quickly shuddered as he remembered the holophotos."Alright, go home, you're drunk Will", he started with an exasperated groan, recovering quickly with "... 'you ever have a day without bugs popping up', is what I said to the computer after it garbled up your message, sir! So, I figured I'd just head on over here STAT before I have a look at the comms systems. What seems to be the issue?"
'Nice save', LaForge thought to himself, 'better double-check with the computer next time before I assume he's off his rocket again next time... So glad his name also acts as a verb!'#STTNG #outTakes #bloopers #WillRiker #JonathanFrakes #GeordiLaForge #fiction #microFiction #FanFiction #FiXatoWrites #FiXatoCreative
-
CW: Star Trek microfiction inspired by TNG in-take, alcohol misuse reference (1600+ chars long)
Setting the scene is this #inTake (an out-take that's been edited back into the original clip) from #StarTrek #TheNextGeneration: https://youtu.be/qsVO9EPhpFc (Ryan's Edits: Star Trek INtakes #143, "Riker Rolls With It".)
"Damn it", Geordi muttered to himself as he headed towards the turbolift, "this is the last time I'm going to haul his drunk ass home again... He knows he can't handle his Romulan Ale."
"Computer, location of Commander Riker?", Geordi asked with a sigh, as the turbolift doors whooshed open.
"Commander Riker is in Shuttle Bay 2," the computer answered.
"Huh, I guess the drunken fool thought he could pop off to Risa... again... good thing we installed those breathalysers after the last time; don't want to have yet another incident like we had with that Vidiian ambassador... he really got under her skin."
Geordi chuckled to himself at the pun, but then quickly shuddered as he remembered the holophotos."Alright, go home, you're drunk Will", he started with an exasperated groan, recovering quickly with "... 'you ever have a day without bugs popping up', is what I said to the computer after it garbled up your message, sir! So, I figured I'd just head on over here STAT before I have a look at the comms systems. What seems to be the issue?"
'Nice save', LaForge thought to himself, 'better double-check with the computer next time before I assume he's off his rocket again next time... So glad his name also acts as a verb!'#STTNG #outTakes #bloopers #WillRiker #JonathanFrakes #GeordiLaForge #fiction #microFiction #FanFiction #FiXatoWrites #FiXatoCreative
-
This little extra terrestrial 👽 is a Collared Scops Owl at Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand. We don't have intake info but we know they're exceptionally cute. Congrats to WFFT for 25 years! Want to donate? https://wfft.org/donate Source: https://fb.com/10152736370402657 #owlsintowels 💛🦉 🇹🇭
-
New #Endurain version v0.18.0 released with API keys, fasting+water intake+bowl movement tracking in health, Strava bulk import, activity map thumbnails, Redis-backed security storage, and security hardening.
💡Gentle reminder: don't forget to update the image from "ghcr.io/endurain-project/endurain" to "codeberg.org/endurain-project/endurain"
Grab it now https://codeberg.org/endurain-project/endurain/releases/tag/v0.18.0
-
Cannabis Lies Vol. 9: The Reform Lie
Filed Under: Policy Fiction
The federal apparatus has spoken. The Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration have announced a shift in the regulatory status of cannabis, moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act while pointedly leaving adult use, unlicensed, and synthetic THC products in Schedule I. Headlines across the country erupted with the language of victory. Outlets hailed this as a historic acknowledgment of the plant’s medical utility, a shift that supposedly recognizes the plant’s reality after decades of denial. The public was told that the prohibition era was entering its twilight and that the federal government had finally conceded that the plant possesses medicinal value.
None of this reflects the actual legal impact of the order. This announcement is the latest manifestation of the Reform Lie. It is a calculated piece of bureaucratic maintenance designed to satisfy the demand for progress while ensuring the core structure of prohibition remains entirely untouched. As Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in the order, the new policy mandates that:
“Marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.”
It is a classic maneuver by the state to preserve its authority by offering a small, controlled concession that changes everything on paper but leaves the reality of the drug war exactly where it has always been.
The Reform Lie is the mechanism by which the state manages the tension between popular opinion and its own mandate. It functions by acknowledging that a substance has medical value without ever addressing the fundamental injustice of its criminalization. When the government moves a substance from one box to another, it claims it is following the science. When that same government keeps the prisons full, keeps the borders militarized against possession, and keeps the threat of federal intervention hanging over every state-sanctioned interaction, it is not following science. It is managing optics. For decades, the apparatus has faced growing pressure to address the disconnect between federal law and the public reality of cannabis use. Instead of dismantling the structure, the government has repeatedly opted for symbolic reform. These gestures generate cycles of positive press. They allow officials to claim they have acted on the issue. They provide a release valve for public anger without ever sacrificing the underlying authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish. This is the central trick. The Reform Lie presents a change in tax status as a change in morality.
To understand the scope of this deception, one must look closely at what the shift to Schedule III actually achieves. Under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule III is home to substances such as anabolic steroids and certain prescription painkillers. It is a designation that implies a potential for abuse, though one that the state deems less severe than those in the Schedule I category, which the government defines as having no currently accepted medical use. Moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III finally acknowledges what has been true for thousands of years. It acknowledges that the plant has medical value.
However, the change in classification does nothing to address the core conflicts of the prohibition era. The federal criminal penalties for the unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of cannabis remain firmly in place for everything outside that narrow, state-sanctioned medical window. The interstate commerce ban survives completely intact. The government continues to treat the transport of the plant across state lines as a federal crime, regardless of the legality of the substance in the states of origin or destination. Banking remains a fractured landscape of private risk and federal oversight. Employment in the federal sector remains hostile to users, and the firearm restrictions that strip rights from medical patients do not budge.
Most critically, this move provides no relief for those currently held in the carceral system. This order structurally excludes any mechanism for record relief, sentence modification, or pardon, leaving the carceral status quo entirely intact. It does not vacate criminal records. It does not end the status of cannabis as a tool for immigration enforcement. It does not stop the random, localized harassment of the population by federal agencies that still view the plant as contraband outside of the narrow, state-licensed framework.
This is a victory for the balance sheet. It is a win for the corporations that have spent millions lobbying for the ability to deduct ordinary business expenses under the tax code. As of April 22, 2026, state-licensed medical cannabis is no longer subject to 280E. It is a stabilization for the industry that the government has deemed acceptable. For the average person, for the patient, and for the citizen who does not operate within the protective bubble of a state-licensed medical program, the reality remains frozen in the past. This bifurcation of the population is intentional. It creates a system where legitimacy is not a right inherent to the citizen. It is a commodity to be licensed. The people who work within the sanctioned industry are protected, taxed, and monitored. The people who exist outside of that bubble, who grow their own, who share, or who live in states without functional medical programs, are left to the mercy of a law that has not changed. The government has not legalized the plant. It has simply professionalized the privilege of interacting with it.
This strategy is not new. It follows a consistent historical pattern. In every generation, the state has used cannabis policy as a messaging tool to address shifting cultural demands. This is not about the plant. It is about the maintenance of control. The lineage of this deception is long and well-documented.
Consider the era of the Gateway Lie. The government needed a way to justify the expansion of its police power, so it framed the plant as the first step on a path to hard drug use. This narrative was never about safety. It was about creating a bridge between a benign cultural habit and the perceived chaos of the heroin epidemic. It gave law enforcement a justification to monitor, harass, and incarcerate individuals who were otherwise peaceful. The Gateway Lie was effective because it operated on fear. It suggested that a single act of consumption was a moral failing that would lead inevitably to destruction.
Consider the Crime Lie, where the plant was the supposed accelerant for violence. In the 1980s and 1990s, the state pivoted to a narrative of aggression. It claimed that cannabis use caused psychosis and fueled the drug trade. It used this narrative to justify the militarization of police forces, the introduction of civil asset forfeiture, and the explosion of the prison population. The Crime Lie turned the consumer into a danger to the public, a threat that had to be neutralized by the full weight of the judicial system. It was never about the drug. It was about the expansion of the carceral state.
Consider the Teen Epidemic Lie, where the narrative focused on the alleged destruction of youth, or the Addiction Lie, which served to pathologize a human relationship with a plant. Each of these lies served a purpose. They provided the state with the moral cover required to expand surveillance, increase budgets, and exert control. The Reform Lie is simply the modern evolution of this pattern. The state no longer needs to argue that the plant causes violence, because the public no longer believes it. So, the state shifts the narrative. It pivots to the language of regulation. It claims to be fixing the system. It is a retreat, but it is a managed retreat. The goal remains the same, which is to maintain the state’s position as the final arbiter of what a person can put into their own body.
The most devastating impact of the Reform Lie is the erasure of the human cost. When the headlines celebrate a minor technical shift, they drown out the voices of those who continue to suffer under the full weight of prohibition. The Reform Lie tells the prisoner that their incarceration is necessary because they did not have the right paperwork. It tells the immigrant that their status remains precarious because the federal law still views the plant as an illicit substance. It tells the veteran that they must choose between their medical treatment and their access to federal services. It tells the small grower that they are a criminal while the corporate entity next door is a taxpayer. By focusing on the tax status of corporations, the conversation ignores the individuals who are still being processed through the system. It creates an environment where progress is measured by market capitalization rather than the restoration of liberty. It turns the struggle for sovereignty into a fight for market share.
Help Keep Pot Culture Magazine Independent Pot Culture Magazine is independent cannabis journalism. No corporate owners. No investors. Just readers. If you value this work, chip in a few dollars and help keep it going. Support PCMIf the government acknowledges that cannabis has medical value, the continued maintenance of criminal penalties for everyone else becomes an indefensible moral contradiction. One cannot simultaneously argue that a substance is legitimate medicine and that the possession of that substance warrants the stripping of rights, the loss of employment, or the threat of prison. This contradiction exposes the truth of the state position. The government does not actually care about the safety of the substance. It cares about the control of the substance. If it were about safety, the state would be looking for ways to educate rather than incarcerate. If it were about medicine, the state would be ensuring access rather than creating barriers. The existence of the prohibition machinery alongside the admission of medical utility for the licensed few is proof that the objective has always been to maintain a system of punishment.
This system relies on the compliance of the public. It relies on the belief that the state is making progress. The Reform Lie is designed to prevent the public from seeing that the state is not moving toward freedom. It is moving toward an integrated model of control. By allowing a portion of the market to become legitimate, the state creates a vested interest in the status quo. The corporate entities that now have a seat at the table are no longer incentivized to fight for total legalization. They are incentivized to maintain the current regulatory structure because it keeps their competitors out. They become partners in the enforcement of the very prohibition they once railed against. This is the ultimate victory for the state. It co-opts the opposition by giving them a slice of the profit.
We have seen this happen in other sectors of the economy, where regulations are written by the very corporations they are meant to govern. This is not reform. This is the capture of the regulatory apparatus. The Reform Lie ensures that the people who built the culture, who fought for the plant when it was dangerous to do so, are excluded from the new order. They are the ones who bear the cost of the transition. They are the ones who are still in cages, who are still fleeing from the law, who are still fighting for the right to exist in peace.
This administrative process is now set to continue with new hearings starting June 29, 2026. These proceedings are often portrayed as a necessary step toward further reform, a way to build a bureaucratic consensus for future changes. In practice, they serve as a stalling tactic. They provide a way for the administrative state to maintain the illusion of progress while keeping the ultimate authority firmly in its own hands. These hearings will involve experts, lobbyists, and officials debating the minutiae of regulation, all while the fundamental structure of the Controlled Substances Act remains unassailable. The system is designed to consume time, resources, and energy, ensuring that any real change is mediated through a process that the state can control, slow, or halt entirely. It is a theatre of governance, performed for an audience that is desperate for change, but the script was written in the halls of power, not by the people who have lived the consequences of prohibition.
MORE FROM CANNABIS LIES
CANNABIS LIES Vol. 8: The Addiction Lie
Cannabis is often labeled addictive, but the science tells a more precise story. This piece breaks down cannabis use disorder, how it is defined, and why mild, moderate, and severe cases get flattened into one fear-driven narrative. The result is a distorted public understanding of risk that fuels policy, perception, and misinformation.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 11, 2026April 20, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 7: The Mental Health Panic
Cannabis and mental health risks are often overstated in public debate. Research shows heavy use and high THC exposure can increase psychosis risk in vulnerable individuals, but widespread claims of a mental health crisis lack strong evidence. This piece examines the data, separates correlation from causation, and breaks down what cannabis users need to know.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 4, 2026April 2, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 6: The Driving Apocalypse Lie
Legal cannabis is often blamed for rising traffic deaths, but federal data tells a more complicated story. NHTSA findings, toxicology limitations, and conflicting crash studies reveal that THC presence is not a reliable measure of impairment. This investigation breaks down how flawed testing and policy shortcuts have shaped the narrative around so-called stoned driving.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsMarch 28, 2026March 27, 2026The administrative state is also moving to consolidate its control over clinical trials. By creating a registration pathway for state-licensed entities, the government is essentially seizing control of the research process. It is setting itself up as the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge. It will dictate who can research the plant, what they can research, and what the results can be used for. This is not an opening of the doors to scientific discovery. It is the enclosure of the scientific commons. It ensures that the research that reaches the public will be the research that has been filtered through the priorities of the state.
The Reform Lie is not a strategy. It is an admission of failure. When the government chooses to perform the act of reform without embracing the reality of justice, it proves that it is not interested in the truth. It is interested in the maintenance of power. True reform would not be a shuffling of schedules. It would be the total and unconditional withdrawal of federal interference from the lives of the people. It would be the recognition that the state has no authority to criminalize the relationship between a human being and a plant. It would be the end of the prohibition machine, the release of the prisoners, and the restoration of rights for every person affected by the war on the plant.
As long as the apparatus continues to frame these technical shifts as moral victories, the public must recognize the deception. This is not progress. This is the state recalibrating its control to ensure that it remains the gatekeeper, the tax collector, and the final judge of who is allowed to exist in the world it seeks to dominate. The plant remains the same. The people remain the same. The only thing that has shifted is the label on the cage. The cage is still there. The bars are still locked. The guards are still watching. The power to punish, to threaten, and to control has not been removed. It has been refined. It has been made more surgical. It has been made more efficient.
The moral weight of this lie is heavy. It falls on those who have been promised justice and received only a change in terminology. It falls on the families who have been broken by the enforcement of archaic laws. It falls on the communities that have been targeted for generations. The Reform Lie assumes that the public has forgotten the history of the struggle. It assumes that the public is satisfied with the crumbs of corporate legitimacy. It assumes that there is no understanding of the difference between the freedom to live and the permission to serve.
The narrative of the state must be rejected. The recognition must grow that every small step that leaves the core structure of the prohibition machine in place is a step away from justice. The government must be held accountable for the contradiction of its own law. The reality of the prohibition era must continue to be documented, to expose the lies that are told to justify the control, and to advocate for the total restoration of liberty. The struggle for the plant is not a struggle for a change in status. It is a struggle for the soul of the culture. It is a struggle to define what it means to be a free person in a society that seeks to regulate every choice. As NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano noted regarding the order:
“Rescheduling fails to fully harmonize federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of many states, particularly the 24 states that have legalized its use and sale to adults.”
This is the core of the deception. The Reform Lie is the latest barrier to that freedom. It is a wall that must be dismantled, not by the government, but by the people who have lived the reality of the struggle.
The truth is simple, though the state works hard to obscure it. Cannabis is a part of the human experience. It has been used for healing, for creativity, for connection, and for joy for as long as historical records exist. The attempts by the state to control this relationship are an affront to human autonomy. They are based on fear, on ignorance, and on a desire for power. The reclassification to Schedule III is just the latest tactic in a long campaign to prevent people from fully embracing their own sovereignty. While the proponents of this move claim that:
“Today’s order marks a historical reversal in federal cannabis policy,”
It is a sign that the state is feeling the pressure, that it knows its position is untenable, but that it is not yet ready to concede.
A crossroads has been reached. Either the crumbs offered by the state are accepted, turning the public into participants in their own regulation, or the fight for the total and unconditional end of the prohibition machine continues. The Reform Lie can be accepted, or the truth can be demanded. The history of the culture is a history of resistance. It is a history of people who refused to be told what they could do, who they could be, or what they could consume. That history is the source of strength. It is the foundation upon which the future will be built. Permission from the state is not required to exist. Schedules, labels, and tax codes are not needed to define what is right. The truth is known, and it will continue to be shared until the last cage is empty and the prohibition machine is nothing but a memory.
The Reform Lie will continue to be told. The headlines will continue to scream about progress that does not exist. The state will continue to frame its maintenance of power as a move toward justice. But the deception will not hold. The patterns are visible. The history is known. The stakes are understood. The reality of the prohibition era will be documented, one article, one story, one voice at a time. This is not just a battle for a plant. It is a battle for the truth. And it is a battle that will be won, not because the state gives permission, but because the truth is on the side of the people. The prohibition machine is built on lies, and lies cannot stand forever against the weight of reality. The end of prohibition is coming, not through the actions of the state, but through the resolve of the people who have been fighting for it all along. The Reform Lie is the last gasp of a system that knows its time is over. We will not be fooled. We will not be silenced. We will be here, documenting the reality, telling the truth, and fighting for the culture until the day the plant is free.
©2026, Pot Culture Magazine. All rights reserved. This is the property of Pot Culture Magazine and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission
of this work, in part or in whole, without the express written permission of Pot Culture Magazine, is strictly
prohibited.F O R T H E C U L T U R E B Y T H E C U L T U R E
The Digital Cage: Saint Lucia’s Traceability Trap
Saint Lucia has selected GrowerIQ as its national seed-to-sale traceability backbone, effectively finalizing a digital surveillance grid for its cannabis industry. By mandating enterprise software before establishing licensing frameworks, the government risks automating the exclusion of legacy farmers. This move trades cultural sovereignty for state-managed control, turning the cannabis industry into an extension of the…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 23, 2026April 22, 2026Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s Virginia Sabotage
Virginia legalized possession, but Governor Abigail Spanberger sabotaged the retail market. By delaying sales until 2027 and gutting equity provisions, the Commonwealth institutionalized a half-legal trap. Consumers now navigate a system that treats possession as a right but supply as a crime, fueling an unchecked illicit market while abandoning promised reform. Spanberger’s public safety rhetoric…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 21, 2026April 20, 20264/20 has been hollowed out by branding, corporate silence, and a culture that forgot its own history. While the industry sells holiday merch, Singapore executed a man for cannabis. The movement that once fought for autonomy now treats the plant like a commodity. This piece examines the cost of that betrayal and the culture left…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 20, 2026April 24, 2026 #280E #AdministrativeLaw #cannabis #CannabisCommunity #CannabisCulture #CannabisCommunity #CarceralState #Culture #DEA #DepartmentOfJustice #DrugWar #FederalGovernment #Industry #Legalization #Marijuana #MarijuanaNews #NORML #Policy #PolicyFiction #PotCultureMagazine #Prohibition #Reform #ScheduleIII #StateSanctioned #Weed -
Cannabis Lies Vol. 9: The Reform Lie
Filed Under: Policy Fiction
The federal apparatus has spoken. The Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration have announced a shift in the regulatory status of cannabis, moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act while pointedly leaving adult use, unlicensed, and synthetic THC products in Schedule I. Headlines across the country erupted with the language of victory. Outlets hailed this as a historic acknowledgment of the plant’s medical utility, a shift that supposedly recognizes the plant’s reality after decades of denial. The public was told that the prohibition era was entering its twilight and that the federal government had finally conceded that the plant possesses medicinal value.
None of this reflects the actual legal impact of the order. This announcement is the latest manifestation of the Reform Lie. It is a calculated piece of bureaucratic maintenance designed to satisfy the demand for progress while ensuring the core structure of prohibition remains entirely untouched. As Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in the order, the new policy mandates that:
“Marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.”
It is a classic maneuver by the state to preserve its authority by offering a small, controlled concession that changes everything on paper but leaves the reality of the drug war exactly where it has always been.
The Reform Lie is the mechanism by which the state manages the tension between popular opinion and its own mandate. It functions by acknowledging that a substance has medical value without ever addressing the fundamental injustice of its criminalization. When the government moves a substance from one box to another, it claims it is following the science. When that same government keeps the prisons full, keeps the borders militarized against possession, and keeps the threat of federal intervention hanging over every state-sanctioned interaction, it is not following science. It is managing optics. For decades, the apparatus has faced growing pressure to address the disconnect between federal law and the public reality of cannabis use. Instead of dismantling the structure, the government has repeatedly opted for symbolic reform. These gestures generate cycles of positive press. They allow officials to claim they have acted on the issue. They provide a release valve for public anger without ever sacrificing the underlying authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish. This is the central trick. The Reform Lie presents a change in tax status as a change in morality.
To understand the scope of this deception, one must look closely at what the shift to Schedule III actually achieves. Under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule III is home to substances such as anabolic steroids and certain prescription painkillers. It is a designation that implies a potential for abuse, though one that the state deems less severe than those in the Schedule I category, which the government defines as having no currently accepted medical use. Moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III finally acknowledges what has been true for thousands of years. It acknowledges that the plant has medical value.
However, the change in classification does nothing to address the core conflicts of the prohibition era. The federal criminal penalties for the unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of cannabis remain firmly in place for everything outside that narrow, state-sanctioned medical window. The interstate commerce ban survives completely intact. The government continues to treat the transport of the plant across state lines as a federal crime, regardless of the legality of the substance in the states of origin or destination. Banking remains a fractured landscape of private risk and federal oversight. Employment in the federal sector remains hostile to users, and the firearm restrictions that strip rights from medical patients do not budge.
Most critically, this move provides no relief for those currently held in the carceral system. This order structurally excludes any mechanism for record relief, sentence modification, or pardon, leaving the carceral status quo entirely intact. It does not vacate criminal records. It does not end the status of cannabis as a tool for immigration enforcement. It does not stop the random, localized harassment of the population by federal agencies that still view the plant as contraband outside of the narrow, state-licensed framework.
This is a victory for the balance sheet. It is a win for the corporations that have spent millions lobbying for the ability to deduct ordinary business expenses under the tax code. As of April 22, 2026, state-licensed medical cannabis is no longer subject to 280E. It is a stabilization for the industry that the government has deemed acceptable. For the average person, for the patient, and for the citizen who does not operate within the protective bubble of a state-licensed medical program, the reality remains frozen in the past. This bifurcation of the population is intentional. It creates a system where legitimacy is not a right inherent to the citizen. It is a commodity to be licensed. The people who work within the sanctioned industry are protected, taxed, and monitored. The people who exist outside of that bubble, who grow their own, who share, or who live in states without functional medical programs, are left to the mercy of a law that has not changed. The government has not legalized the plant. It has simply professionalized the privilege of interacting with it.
This strategy is not new. It follows a consistent historical pattern. In every generation, the state has used cannabis policy as a messaging tool to address shifting cultural demands. This is not about the plant. It is about the maintenance of control. The lineage of this deception is long and well-documented.
Consider the era of the Gateway Lie. The government needed a way to justify the expansion of its police power, so it framed the plant as the first step on a path to hard drug use. This narrative was never about safety. It was about creating a bridge between a benign cultural habit and the perceived chaos of the heroin epidemic. It gave law enforcement a justification to monitor, harass, and incarcerate individuals who were otherwise peaceful. The Gateway Lie was effective because it operated on fear. It suggested that a single act of consumption was a moral failing that would lead inevitably to destruction.
Consider the Crime Lie, where the plant was the supposed accelerant for violence. In the 1980s and 1990s, the state pivoted to a narrative of aggression. It claimed that cannabis use caused psychosis and fueled the drug trade. It used this narrative to justify the militarization of police forces, the introduction of civil asset forfeiture, and the explosion of the prison population. The Crime Lie turned the consumer into a danger to the public, a threat that had to be neutralized by the full weight of the judicial system. It was never about the drug. It was about the expansion of the carceral state.
Consider the Teen Epidemic Lie, where the narrative focused on the alleged destruction of youth, or the Addiction Lie, which served to pathologize a human relationship with a plant. Each of these lies served a purpose. They provided the state with the moral cover required to expand surveillance, increase budgets, and exert control. The Reform Lie is simply the modern evolution of this pattern. The state no longer needs to argue that the plant causes violence, because the public no longer believes it. So, the state shifts the narrative. It pivots to the language of regulation. It claims to be fixing the system. It is a retreat, but it is a managed retreat. The goal remains the same, which is to maintain the state’s position as the final arbiter of what a person can put into their own body.
The most devastating impact of the Reform Lie is the erasure of the human cost. When the headlines celebrate a minor technical shift, they drown out the voices of those who continue to suffer under the full weight of prohibition. The Reform Lie tells the prisoner that their incarceration is necessary because they did not have the right paperwork. It tells the immigrant that their status remains precarious because the federal law still views the plant as an illicit substance. It tells the veteran that they must choose between their medical treatment and their access to federal services. It tells the small grower that they are a criminal while the corporate entity next door is a taxpayer. By focusing on the tax status of corporations, the conversation ignores the individuals who are still being processed through the system. It creates an environment where progress is measured by market capitalization rather than the restoration of liberty. It turns the struggle for sovereignty into a fight for market share.
Help Keep Pot Culture Magazine Independent Pot Culture Magazine is independent cannabis journalism. No corporate owners. No investors. Just readers. If you value this work, chip in a few dollars and help keep it going. Support PCMIf the government acknowledges that cannabis has medical value, the continued maintenance of criminal penalties for everyone else becomes an indefensible moral contradiction. One cannot simultaneously argue that a substance is legitimate medicine and that the possession of that substance warrants the stripping of rights, the loss of employment, or the threat of prison. This contradiction exposes the truth of the state position. The government does not actually care about the safety of the substance. It cares about the control of the substance. If it were about safety, the state would be looking for ways to educate rather than incarcerate. If it were about medicine, the state would be ensuring access rather than creating barriers. The existence of the prohibition machinery alongside the admission of medical utility for the licensed few is proof that the objective has always been to maintain a system of punishment.
This system relies on the compliance of the public. It relies on the belief that the state is making progress. The Reform Lie is designed to prevent the public from seeing that the state is not moving toward freedom. It is moving toward an integrated model of control. By allowing a portion of the market to become legitimate, the state creates a vested interest in the status quo. The corporate entities that now have a seat at the table are no longer incentivized to fight for total legalization. They are incentivized to maintain the current regulatory structure because it keeps their competitors out. They become partners in the enforcement of the very prohibition they once railed against. This is the ultimate victory for the state. It co-opts the opposition by giving them a slice of the profit.
We have seen this happen in other sectors of the economy, where regulations are written by the very corporations they are meant to govern. This is not reform. This is the capture of the regulatory apparatus. The Reform Lie ensures that the people who built the culture, who fought for the plant when it was dangerous to do so, are excluded from the new order. They are the ones who bear the cost of the transition. They are the ones who are still in cages, who are still fleeing from the law, who are still fighting for the right to exist in peace.
This administrative process is now set to continue with new hearings starting June 29, 2026. These proceedings are often portrayed as a necessary step toward further reform, a way to build a bureaucratic consensus for future changes. In practice, they serve as a stalling tactic. They provide a way for the administrative state to maintain the illusion of progress while keeping the ultimate authority firmly in its own hands. These hearings will involve experts, lobbyists, and officials debating the minutiae of regulation, all while the fundamental structure of the Controlled Substances Act remains unassailable. The system is designed to consume time, resources, and energy, ensuring that any real change is mediated through a process that the state can control, slow, or halt entirely. It is a theatre of governance, performed for an audience that is desperate for change, but the script was written in the halls of power, not by the people who have lived the consequences of prohibition.
MORE FROM CANNABIS LIES
CANNABIS LIES Vol. 8: The Addiction Lie
Cannabis is often labeled addictive, but the science tells a more precise story. This piece breaks down cannabis use disorder, how it is defined, and why mild, moderate, and severe cases get flattened into one fear-driven narrative. The result is a distorted public understanding of risk that fuels policy, perception, and misinformation.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 11, 2026April 20, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 7: The Mental Health Panic
Cannabis and mental health risks are often overstated in public debate. Research shows heavy use and high THC exposure can increase psychosis risk in vulnerable individuals, but widespread claims of a mental health crisis lack strong evidence. This piece examines the data, separates correlation from causation, and breaks down what cannabis users need to know.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 4, 2026April 2, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 6: The Driving Apocalypse Lie
Legal cannabis is often blamed for rising traffic deaths, but federal data tells a more complicated story. NHTSA findings, toxicology limitations, and conflicting crash studies reveal that THC presence is not a reliable measure of impairment. This investigation breaks down how flawed testing and policy shortcuts have shaped the narrative around so-called stoned driving.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsMarch 28, 2026March 27, 2026The administrative state is also moving to consolidate its control over clinical trials. By creating a registration pathway for state-licensed entities, the government is essentially seizing control of the research process. It is setting itself up as the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge. It will dictate who can research the plant, what they can research, and what the results can be used for. This is not an opening of the doors to scientific discovery. It is the enclosure of the scientific commons. It ensures that the research that reaches the public will be the research that has been filtered through the priorities of the state.
The Reform Lie is not a strategy. It is an admission of failure. When the government chooses to perform the act of reform without embracing the reality of justice, it proves that it is not interested in the truth. It is interested in the maintenance of power. True reform would not be a shuffling of schedules. It would be the total and unconditional withdrawal of federal interference from the lives of the people. It would be the recognition that the state has no authority to criminalize the relationship between a human being and a plant. It would be the end of the prohibition machine, the release of the prisoners, and the restoration of rights for every person affected by the war on the plant.
As long as the apparatus continues to frame these technical shifts as moral victories, the public must recognize the deception. This is not progress. This is the state recalibrating its control to ensure that it remains the gatekeeper, the tax collector, and the final judge of who is allowed to exist in the world it seeks to dominate. The plant remains the same. The people remain the same. The only thing that has shifted is the label on the cage. The cage is still there. The bars are still locked. The guards are still watching. The power to punish, to threaten, and to control has not been removed. It has been refined. It has been made more surgical. It has been made more efficient.
The moral weight of this lie is heavy. It falls on those who have been promised justice and received only a change in terminology. It falls on the families who have been broken by the enforcement of archaic laws. It falls on the communities that have been targeted for generations. The Reform Lie assumes that the public has forgotten the history of the struggle. It assumes that the public is satisfied with the crumbs of corporate legitimacy. It assumes that there is no understanding of the difference between the freedom to live and the permission to serve.
The narrative of the state must be rejected. The recognition must grow that every small step that leaves the core structure of the prohibition machine in place is a step away from justice. The government must be held accountable for the contradiction of its own law. The reality of the prohibition era must continue to be documented, to expose the lies that are told to justify the control, and to advocate for the total restoration of liberty. The struggle for the plant is not a struggle for a change in status. It is a struggle for the soul of the culture. It is a struggle to define what it means to be a free person in a society that seeks to regulate every choice. As NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano noted regarding the order:
“Rescheduling fails to fully harmonize federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of many states, particularly the 24 states that have legalized its use and sale to adults.”
This is the core of the deception. The Reform Lie is the latest barrier to that freedom. It is a wall that must be dismantled, not by the government, but by the people who have lived the reality of the struggle.
The truth is simple, though the state works hard to obscure it. Cannabis is a part of the human experience. It has been used for healing, for creativity, for connection, and for joy for as long as historical records exist. The attempts by the state to control this relationship are an affront to human autonomy. They are based on fear, on ignorance, and on a desire for power. The reclassification to Schedule III is just the latest tactic in a long campaign to prevent people from fully embracing their own sovereignty. While the proponents of this move claim that:
“Today’s order marks a historical reversal in federal cannabis policy,”
It is a sign that the state is feeling the pressure, that it knows its position is untenable, but that it is not yet ready to concede.
A crossroads has been reached. Either the crumbs offered by the state are accepted, turning the public into participants in their own regulation, or the fight for the total and unconditional end of the prohibition machine continues. The Reform Lie can be accepted, or the truth can be demanded. The history of the culture is a history of resistance. It is a history of people who refused to be told what they could do, who they could be, or what they could consume. That history is the source of strength. It is the foundation upon which the future will be built. Permission from the state is not required to exist. Schedules, labels, and tax codes are not needed to define what is right. The truth is known, and it will continue to be shared until the last cage is empty and the prohibition machine is nothing but a memory.
The Reform Lie will continue to be told. The headlines will continue to scream about progress that does not exist. The state will continue to frame its maintenance of power as a move toward justice. But the deception will not hold. The patterns are visible. The history is known. The stakes are understood. The reality of the prohibition era will be documented, one article, one story, one voice at a time. This is not just a battle for a plant. It is a battle for the truth. And it is a battle that will be won, not because the state gives permission, but because the truth is on the side of the people. The prohibition machine is built on lies, and lies cannot stand forever against the weight of reality. The end of prohibition is coming, not through the actions of the state, but through the resolve of the people who have been fighting for it all along. The Reform Lie is the last gasp of a system that knows its time is over. We will not be fooled. We will not be silenced. We will be here, documenting the reality, telling the truth, and fighting for the culture until the day the plant is free.
©2026, Pot Culture Magazine. All rights reserved. This is the property of Pot Culture Magazine and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission
of this work, in part or in whole, without the express written permission of Pot Culture Magazine, is strictly
prohibited.F O R T H E C U L T U R E B Y T H E C U L T U R E
The Digital Cage: Saint Lucia’s Traceability Trap
Saint Lucia has selected GrowerIQ as its national seed-to-sale traceability backbone, effectively finalizing a digital surveillance grid for its cannabis industry. By mandating enterprise software before establishing licensing frameworks, the government risks automating the exclusion of legacy farmers. This move trades cultural sovereignty for state-managed control, turning the cannabis industry into an extension of the…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 23, 2026April 22, 2026Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s Virginia Sabotage
Virginia legalized possession, but Governor Abigail Spanberger sabotaged the retail market. By delaying sales until 2027 and gutting equity provisions, the Commonwealth institutionalized a half-legal trap. Consumers now navigate a system that treats possession as a right but supply as a crime, fueling an unchecked illicit market while abandoning promised reform. Spanberger’s public safety rhetoric…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 21, 2026April 20, 20264/20 has been hollowed out by branding, corporate silence, and a culture that forgot its own history. While the industry sells holiday merch, Singapore executed a man for cannabis. The movement that once fought for autonomy now treats the plant like a commodity. This piece examines the cost of that betrayal and the culture left…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 20, 2026April 24, 2026 #280E #AdministrativeLaw #cannabis #CannabisCommunity #CannabisCulture #CannabisCommunity #CarceralState #Culture #DEA #DepartmentOfJustice #DrugWar #FederalGovernment #Industry #Legalization #Marijuana #MarijuanaNews #NORML #Policy #PolicyFiction #PotCultureMagazine #Prohibition #Reform #ScheduleIII #StateSanctioned #Weed -
Cannabis Lies Vol. 9: The Reform Lie
Filed Under: Policy Fiction
The federal apparatus has spoken. The Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration have announced a shift in the regulatory status of cannabis, moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act while pointedly leaving adult use, unlicensed, and synthetic THC products in Schedule I. Headlines across the country erupted with the language of victory. Outlets hailed this as a historic acknowledgment of the plant’s medical utility, a shift that supposedly recognizes the plant’s reality after decades of denial. The public was told that the prohibition era was entering its twilight and that the federal government had finally conceded that the plant possesses medicinal value.
None of this reflects the actual legal impact of the order. This announcement is the latest manifestation of the Reform Lie. It is a calculated piece of bureaucratic maintenance designed to satisfy the demand for progress while ensuring the core structure of prohibition remains entirely untouched. As Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in the order, the new policy mandates that:
“Marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license, be placed in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.”
It is a classic maneuver by the state to preserve its authority by offering a small, controlled concession that changes everything on paper but leaves the reality of the drug war exactly where it has always been.
The Reform Lie is the mechanism by which the state manages the tension between popular opinion and its own mandate. It functions by acknowledging that a substance has medical value without ever addressing the fundamental injustice of its criminalization. When the government moves a substance from one box to another, it claims it is following the science. When that same government keeps the prisons full, keeps the borders militarized against possession, and keeps the threat of federal intervention hanging over every state-sanctioned interaction, it is not following science. It is managing optics. For decades, the apparatus has faced growing pressure to address the disconnect between federal law and the public reality of cannabis use. Instead of dismantling the structure, the government has repeatedly opted for symbolic reform. These gestures generate cycles of positive press. They allow officials to claim they have acted on the issue. They provide a release valve for public anger without ever sacrificing the underlying authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish. This is the central trick. The Reform Lie presents a change in tax status as a change in morality.
To understand the scope of this deception, one must look closely at what the shift to Schedule III actually achieves. Under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule III is home to substances such as anabolic steroids and certain prescription painkillers. It is a designation that implies a potential for abuse, though one that the state deems less severe than those in the Schedule I category, which the government defines as having no currently accepted medical use. Moving state-licensed medical products to Schedule III finally acknowledges what has been true for thousands of years. It acknowledges that the plant has medical value.
However, the change in classification does nothing to address the core conflicts of the prohibition era. The federal criminal penalties for the unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of cannabis remain firmly in place for everything outside that narrow, state-sanctioned medical window. The interstate commerce ban survives completely intact. The government continues to treat the transport of the plant across state lines as a federal crime, regardless of the legality of the substance in the states of origin or destination. Banking remains a fractured landscape of private risk and federal oversight. Employment in the federal sector remains hostile to users, and the firearm restrictions that strip rights from medical patients do not budge.
Most critically, this move provides no relief for those currently held in the carceral system. This order structurally excludes any mechanism for record relief, sentence modification, or pardon, leaving the carceral status quo entirely intact. It does not vacate criminal records. It does not end the status of cannabis as a tool for immigration enforcement. It does not stop the random, localized harassment of the population by federal agencies that still view the plant as contraband outside of the narrow, state-licensed framework.
This is a victory for the balance sheet. It is a win for the corporations that have spent millions lobbying for the ability to deduct ordinary business expenses under the tax code. As of April 22, 2026, state-licensed medical cannabis is no longer subject to 280E. It is a stabilization for the industry that the government has deemed acceptable. For the average person, for the patient, and for the citizen who does not operate within the protective bubble of a state-licensed medical program, the reality remains frozen in the past. This bifurcation of the population is intentional. It creates a system where legitimacy is not a right inherent to the citizen. It is a commodity to be licensed. The people who work within the sanctioned industry are protected, taxed, and monitored. The people who exist outside of that bubble, who grow their own, who share, or who live in states without functional medical programs, are left to the mercy of a law that has not changed. The government has not legalized the plant. It has simply professionalized the privilege of interacting with it.
This strategy is not new. It follows a consistent historical pattern. In every generation, the state has used cannabis policy as a messaging tool to address shifting cultural demands. This is not about the plant. It is about the maintenance of control. The lineage of this deception is long and well-documented.
Consider the era of the Gateway Lie. The government needed a way to justify the expansion of its police power, so it framed the plant as the first step on a path to hard drug use. This narrative was never about safety. It was about creating a bridge between a benign cultural habit and the perceived chaos of the heroin epidemic. It gave law enforcement a justification to monitor, harass, and incarcerate individuals who were otherwise peaceful. The Gateway Lie was effective because it operated on fear. It suggested that a single act of consumption was a moral failing that would lead inevitably to destruction.
Consider the Crime Lie, where the plant was the supposed accelerant for violence. In the 1980s and 1990s, the state pivoted to a narrative of aggression. It claimed that cannabis use caused psychosis and fueled the drug trade. It used this narrative to justify the militarization of police forces, the introduction of civil asset forfeiture, and the explosion of the prison population. The Crime Lie turned the consumer into a danger to the public, a threat that had to be neutralized by the full weight of the judicial system. It was never about the drug. It was about the expansion of the carceral state.
Consider the Teen Epidemic Lie, where the narrative focused on the alleged destruction of youth, or the Addiction Lie, which served to pathologize a human relationship with a plant. Each of these lies served a purpose. They provided the state with the moral cover required to expand surveillance, increase budgets, and exert control. The Reform Lie is simply the modern evolution of this pattern. The state no longer needs to argue that the plant causes violence, because the public no longer believes it. So, the state shifts the narrative. It pivots to the language of regulation. It claims to be fixing the system. It is a retreat, but it is a managed retreat. The goal remains the same, which is to maintain the state’s position as the final arbiter of what a person can put into their own body.
The most devastating impact of the Reform Lie is the erasure of the human cost. When the headlines celebrate a minor technical shift, they drown out the voices of those who continue to suffer under the full weight of prohibition. The Reform Lie tells the prisoner that their incarceration is necessary because they did not have the right paperwork. It tells the immigrant that their status remains precarious because the federal law still views the plant as an illicit substance. It tells the veteran that they must choose between their medical treatment and their access to federal services. It tells the small grower that they are a criminal while the corporate entity next door is a taxpayer. By focusing on the tax status of corporations, the conversation ignores the individuals who are still being processed through the system. It creates an environment where progress is measured by market capitalization rather than the restoration of liberty. It turns the struggle for sovereignty into a fight for market share.
Help Keep Pot Culture Magazine Independent Pot Culture Magazine is independent cannabis journalism. No corporate owners. No investors. Just readers. If you value this work, chip in a few dollars and help keep it going. Support PCMIf the government acknowledges that cannabis has medical value, the continued maintenance of criminal penalties for everyone else becomes an indefensible moral contradiction. One cannot simultaneously argue that a substance is legitimate medicine and that the possession of that substance warrants the stripping of rights, the loss of employment, or the threat of prison. This contradiction exposes the truth of the state position. The government does not actually care about the safety of the substance. It cares about the control of the substance. If it were about safety, the state would be looking for ways to educate rather than incarcerate. If it were about medicine, the state would be ensuring access rather than creating barriers. The existence of the prohibition machinery alongside the admission of medical utility for the licensed few is proof that the objective has always been to maintain a system of punishment.
This system relies on the compliance of the public. It relies on the belief that the state is making progress. The Reform Lie is designed to prevent the public from seeing that the state is not moving toward freedom. It is moving toward an integrated model of control. By allowing a portion of the market to become legitimate, the state creates a vested interest in the status quo. The corporate entities that now have a seat at the table are no longer incentivized to fight for total legalization. They are incentivized to maintain the current regulatory structure because it keeps their competitors out. They become partners in the enforcement of the very prohibition they once railed against. This is the ultimate victory for the state. It co-opts the opposition by giving them a slice of the profit.
We have seen this happen in other sectors of the economy, where regulations are written by the very corporations they are meant to govern. This is not reform. This is the capture of the regulatory apparatus. The Reform Lie ensures that the people who built the culture, who fought for the plant when it was dangerous to do so, are excluded from the new order. They are the ones who bear the cost of the transition. They are the ones who are still in cages, who are still fleeing from the law, who are still fighting for the right to exist in peace.
This administrative process is now set to continue with new hearings starting June 29, 2026. These proceedings are often portrayed as a necessary step toward further reform, a way to build a bureaucratic consensus for future changes. In practice, they serve as a stalling tactic. They provide a way for the administrative state to maintain the illusion of progress while keeping the ultimate authority firmly in its own hands. These hearings will involve experts, lobbyists, and officials debating the minutiae of regulation, all while the fundamental structure of the Controlled Substances Act remains unassailable. The system is designed to consume time, resources, and energy, ensuring that any real change is mediated through a process that the state can control, slow, or halt entirely. It is a theatre of governance, performed for an audience that is desperate for change, but the script was written in the halls of power, not by the people who have lived the consequences of prohibition.
MORE FROM CANNABIS LIES
CANNABIS LIES Vol. 8: The Addiction Lie
Cannabis is often labeled addictive, but the science tells a more precise story. This piece breaks down cannabis use disorder, how it is defined, and why mild, moderate, and severe cases get flattened into one fear-driven narrative. The result is a distorted public understanding of risk that fuels policy, perception, and misinformation.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 11, 2026April 20, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 7: The Mental Health Panic
Cannabis and mental health risks are often overstated in public debate. Research shows heavy use and high THC exposure can increase psychosis risk in vulnerable individuals, but widespread claims of a mental health crisis lack strong evidence. This piece examines the data, separates correlation from causation, and breaks down what cannabis users need to know.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 4, 2026April 2, 2026CANNABIS LIES Vol. 6: The Driving Apocalypse Lie
Legal cannabis is often blamed for rising traffic deaths, but federal data tells a more complicated story. NHTSA findings, toxicology limitations, and conflicting crash studies reveal that THC presence is not a reliable measure of impairment. This investigation breaks down how flawed testing and policy shortcuts have shaped the narrative around so-called stoned driving.
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsMarch 28, 2026March 27, 2026The administrative state is also moving to consolidate its control over clinical trials. By creating a registration pathway for state-licensed entities, the government is essentially seizing control of the research process. It is setting itself up as the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge. It will dictate who can research the plant, what they can research, and what the results can be used for. This is not an opening of the doors to scientific discovery. It is the enclosure of the scientific commons. It ensures that the research that reaches the public will be the research that has been filtered through the priorities of the state.
The Reform Lie is not a strategy. It is an admission of failure. When the government chooses to perform the act of reform without embracing the reality of justice, it proves that it is not interested in the truth. It is interested in the maintenance of power. True reform would not be a shuffling of schedules. It would be the total and unconditional withdrawal of federal interference from the lives of the people. It would be the recognition that the state has no authority to criminalize the relationship between a human being and a plant. It would be the end of the prohibition machine, the release of the prisoners, and the restoration of rights for every person affected by the war on the plant.
As long as the apparatus continues to frame these technical shifts as moral victories, the public must recognize the deception. This is not progress. This is the state recalibrating its control to ensure that it remains the gatekeeper, the tax collector, and the final judge of who is allowed to exist in the world it seeks to dominate. The plant remains the same. The people remain the same. The only thing that has shifted is the label on the cage. The cage is still there. The bars are still locked. The guards are still watching. The power to punish, to threaten, and to control has not been removed. It has been refined. It has been made more surgical. It has been made more efficient.
The moral weight of this lie is heavy. It falls on those who have been promised justice and received only a change in terminology. It falls on the families who have been broken by the enforcement of archaic laws. It falls on the communities that have been targeted for generations. The Reform Lie assumes that the public has forgotten the history of the struggle. It assumes that the public is satisfied with the crumbs of corporate legitimacy. It assumes that there is no understanding of the difference between the freedom to live and the permission to serve.
The narrative of the state must be rejected. The recognition must grow that every small step that leaves the core structure of the prohibition machine in place is a step away from justice. The government must be held accountable for the contradiction of its own law. The reality of the prohibition era must continue to be documented, to expose the lies that are told to justify the control, and to advocate for the total restoration of liberty. The struggle for the plant is not a struggle for a change in status. It is a struggle for the soul of the culture. It is a struggle to define what it means to be a free person in a society that seeks to regulate every choice. As NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano noted regarding the order:
“Rescheduling fails to fully harmonize federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of many states, particularly the 24 states that have legalized its use and sale to adults.”
This is the core of the deception. The Reform Lie is the latest barrier to that freedom. It is a wall that must be dismantled, not by the government, but by the people who have lived the reality of the struggle.
The truth is simple, though the state works hard to obscure it. Cannabis is a part of the human experience. It has been used for healing, for creativity, for connection, and for joy for as long as historical records exist. The attempts by the state to control this relationship are an affront to human autonomy. They are based on fear, on ignorance, and on a desire for power. The reclassification to Schedule III is just the latest tactic in a long campaign to prevent people from fully embracing their own sovereignty. While the proponents of this move claim that:
“Today’s order marks a historical reversal in federal cannabis policy,”
It is a sign that the state is feeling the pressure, that it knows its position is untenable, but that it is not yet ready to concede.
A crossroads has been reached. Either the crumbs offered by the state are accepted, turning the public into participants in their own regulation, or the fight for the total and unconditional end of the prohibition machine continues. The Reform Lie can be accepted, or the truth can be demanded. The history of the culture is a history of resistance. It is a history of people who refused to be told what they could do, who they could be, or what they could consume. That history is the source of strength. It is the foundation upon which the future will be built. Permission from the state is not required to exist. Schedules, labels, and tax codes are not needed to define what is right. The truth is known, and it will continue to be shared until the last cage is empty and the prohibition machine is nothing but a memory.
The Reform Lie will continue to be told. The headlines will continue to scream about progress that does not exist. The state will continue to frame its maintenance of power as a move toward justice. But the deception will not hold. The patterns are visible. The history is known. The stakes are understood. The reality of the prohibition era will be documented, one article, one story, one voice at a time. This is not just a battle for a plant. It is a battle for the truth. And it is a battle that will be won, not because the state gives permission, but because the truth is on the side of the people. The prohibition machine is built on lies, and lies cannot stand forever against the weight of reality. The end of prohibition is coming, not through the actions of the state, but through the resolve of the people who have been fighting for it all along. The Reform Lie is the last gasp of a system that knows its time is over. We will not be fooled. We will not be silenced. We will be here, documenting the reality, telling the truth, and fighting for the culture until the day the plant is free.
©2026, Pot Culture Magazine. All rights reserved. This is the property of Pot Culture Magazine and is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission
of this work, in part or in whole, without the express written permission of Pot Culture Magazine, is strictly
prohibited.F O R T H E C U L T U R E B Y T H E C U L T U R E
The Digital Cage: Saint Lucia’s Traceability Trap
Saint Lucia has selected GrowerIQ as its national seed-to-sale traceability backbone, effectively finalizing a digital surveillance grid for its cannabis industry. By mandating enterprise software before establishing licensing frameworks, the government risks automating the exclusion of legacy farmers. This move trades cultural sovereignty for state-managed control, turning the cannabis industry into an extension of the…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 23, 2026April 22, 2026Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s Virginia Sabotage
Virginia legalized possession, but Governor Abigail Spanberger sabotaged the retail market. By delaying sales until 2027 and gutting equity provisions, the Commonwealth institutionalized a half-legal trap. Consumers now navigate a system that treats possession as a right but supply as a crime, fueling an unchecked illicit market while abandoning promised reform. Spanberger’s public safety rhetoric…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 21, 2026April 20, 20264/20 has been hollowed out by branding, corporate silence, and a culture that forgot its own history. While the industry sells holiday merch, Singapore executed a man for cannabis. The movement that once fought for autonomy now treats the plant like a commodity. This piece examines the cost of that betrayal and the culture left…
by Pot Culture Magazine EditorsApril 20, 2026April 24, 2026 #280E #AdministrativeLaw #cannabis #CannabisCommunity #CannabisCulture #CannabisCommunity #CarceralState #Culture #DEA #DepartmentOfJustice #DrugWar #FederalGovernment #Industry #Legalization #Marijuana #MarijuanaNews #NORML #Policy #PolicyFiction #PotCultureMagazine #Prohibition #Reform #ScheduleIII #StateSanctioned #Weed -
🎮 Indiana Jones e l'Antico Cerchio su Switch 2: fascino intatto, enigmi coinvolgenti e avventura sempre a portata di mano. Vale il viaggio? #IndianaJones #Switch2
🔗 https://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni/come-indiana-jones-e-lantico-cerchio-su-switch-2
-
🎮 Indiana Jones e l'Antico Cerchio su Switch 2: fascino intatto, enigmi coinvolgenti e avventura sempre a portata di mano. Vale il viaggio? #IndianaJones #Switch2
🔗 https://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni/come-indiana-jones-e-lantico-cerchio-su-switch-2
-
🎮 Indiana Jones e l'Antico Cerchio su Switch 2: fascino intatto, enigmi coinvolgenti e avventura sempre a portata di mano. Vale il viaggio? #IndianaJones #Switch2
🔗 https://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni/come-indiana-jones-e-lantico-cerchio-su-switch-2
-
🎮 Indiana Jones e l'Antico Cerchio su Switch 2: fascino intatto, enigmi coinvolgenti e avventura sempre a portata di mano. Vale il viaggio? #IndianaJones #Switch2
🔗 https://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni/come-indiana-jones-e-lantico-cerchio-su-switch-2
-
SIGUE ⬇️
Roma tenía una costumbre brutal con ciertos derrotados.
Intentaba borrarlos de la historia.
Sus nombres eran eliminados de inscripciones, sus estatuas destruidas y sus recuerdos manipulados.
Constantino terminó incluso apropiándose de edificios iniciados por Majencio, como la famosa basílica del Foro.Parecía que Majencio iba a desaparecer completamente bajo la propaganda del vencedor.
Pero casi 1700 años después ocurrió algo inesperado.
En 2005, arqueólogos dirigidos por Clementina Panella excavaban en las laderas del monte Palatino cuando encontraron una cavidad oculta a unos cuatro metros de profundidad.
Dentro había algo extraordinario.
No monedas.
No joyas comunes.
Sino las insignias imperiales completas de Majencio.
Era un descubrimiento casi imposible.
Los arqueólogos encontraron tres cetros imperiales, lanzas ceremoniales, jabalinas de gala, soportes de estandartes y varios símbolos de autoridad envueltos cuidadosamente en lino y seda.
Las telas habían protegido parcialmente las piezas durante siglos.
También aparecieron restos de cajas de madera de álamo donde habían sido escondidas.El objeto más impresionante era uno de los cetros: fabricado en oricalco —una aleación dorada parecida al oro— rematado con pétalos metálicos que sostenían una esfera de vidrio verde oscuro.
El globo simbolizaba el dominio sobre el mundo.Otros cetros llevaban esferas de calcedonia azulada y vidrio amarillo.
Lo increíble es que estas piezas estaban intactas.
No fragmentadas.
No saqueadas.
Completas.Y eso convirtió el hallazgo en algo único.
Hasta entonces esas insignias imperiales solo se conocían por relieves, monedas o esculturas antiguas.
Nadie había encontrado unas reales tan completas pertenecientes a un emperador romano.El descubrimiento abrió además un debate fascinante.
¿Por qué estaban escondidas?
Hay dos teorías principales.
La primera dice que Majencio ordenó ocultarlas antes de la batalla.
Sabía que Constantino avanzaba y quizá entendía que podía perder.
Enterrar las insignias imperiales habría sido una forma desesperada de impedir que el enemigo las usara para legitimarse inmediatamente como nuevo dueño de Roma.La segunda teoría resulta todavía más humana.
Tras la derrota y la exhibición de la cabeza de Majencio, algunos funcionarios o servidores fieles pudieron esconder los objetos apresuradamente para evitar que fueran profanados como trofeos.
Y la escena resulta muy fácil de imaginar.
Roma llena de rumores.
Noticias entrando a la ciudad.
Soldados huyendo.
Puertas cerrándose.
Gente hablando en voz baja.
Y alguien envolviendo cuidadosamente los símbolos de un emperador derrotado mientras fuera el mundo cambiaba para siempre.
Porque eso es lo que realmente ocurrió tras el Puente Milvio.
No solo cayó un hombre.
Cambió el rumbo de Occidente.
Poco después Constantino promulgó el Edicto de Milán, legalizando el cristianismo.
Con el tiempo fundaría Constantinopla y transformaría completamente la estructura política y religiosa del Imperio.Majencio quedó reducido al papel de villano en la historia oficial.
Pero la tierra terminó guardando algo que la propaganda no pudo destruir: las últimas huellas físicas de un emperador que intentó devolverle a Roma su antiguo protagonismo… y perdió.
Hoy esas insignias se conservan en el Museo Nacional Romano, en el Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, como un eco silencioso de aquella guerra civil.
Y quizá eso sea lo más fascinante de toda esta historia.
Que incluso cuando los vencedores intentan borrar a alguien para siempre, a veces el suelo decide recordar.
▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣
▪️𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘭 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦 (𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘦́𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘊𝘳𝘶𝘻, 1961): 𝘚𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘨𝘦́𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘮 (𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘴) 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘰 𝘋𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘶 𝘤𝘶𝘯̃𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭.
▪️𝘌𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰: 𝘕𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢 𝘤𝘰́𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 (𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘭 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦) 𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘪́𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪́𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 (𝘔𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰) 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘭𝘪́𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘢 𝘦𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘰 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘻 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘺𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘗𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘰.#roma #imperioromano #majencio #constantino #historia #arqueologia #antiguaroma #puentemilvio #historiareal #curiosidades #museonacionalromano #palatino #arqueología #ecosdelpasado
-
SIGUE ⬇️
Roma tenía una costumbre brutal con ciertos derrotados.
Intentaba borrarlos de la historia.
Sus nombres eran eliminados de inscripciones, sus estatuas destruidas y sus recuerdos manipulados.
Constantino terminó incluso apropiándose de edificios iniciados por Majencio, como la famosa basílica del Foro.Parecía que Majencio iba a desaparecer completamente bajo la propaganda del vencedor.
Pero casi 1700 años después ocurrió algo inesperado.
En 2005, arqueólogos dirigidos por Clementina Panella excavaban en las laderas del monte Palatino cuando encontraron una cavidad oculta a unos cuatro metros de profundidad.
Dentro había algo extraordinario.
No monedas.
No joyas comunes.
Sino las insignias imperiales completas de Majencio.
Era un descubrimiento casi imposible.
Los arqueólogos encontraron tres cetros imperiales, lanzas ceremoniales, jabalinas de gala, soportes de estandartes y varios símbolos de autoridad envueltos cuidadosamente en lino y seda.
Las telas habían protegido parcialmente las piezas durante siglos.
También aparecieron restos de cajas de madera de álamo donde habían sido escondidas.El objeto más impresionante era uno de los cetros: fabricado en oricalco —una aleación dorada parecida al oro— rematado con pétalos metálicos que sostenían una esfera de vidrio verde oscuro.
El globo simbolizaba el dominio sobre el mundo.Otros cetros llevaban esferas de calcedonia azulada y vidrio amarillo.
Lo increíble es que estas piezas estaban intactas.
No fragmentadas.
No saqueadas.
Completas.Y eso convirtió el hallazgo en algo único.
Hasta entonces esas insignias imperiales solo se conocían por relieves, monedas o esculturas antiguas.
Nadie había encontrado unas reales tan completas pertenecientes a un emperador romano.El descubrimiento abrió además un debate fascinante.
¿Por qué estaban escondidas?
Hay dos teorías principales.
La primera dice que Majencio ordenó ocultarlas antes de la batalla.
Sabía que Constantino avanzaba y quizá entendía que podía perder.
Enterrar las insignias imperiales habría sido una forma desesperada de impedir que el enemigo las usara para legitimarse inmediatamente como nuevo dueño de Roma.La segunda teoría resulta todavía más humana.
Tras la derrota y la exhibición de la cabeza de Majencio, algunos funcionarios o servidores fieles pudieron esconder los objetos apresuradamente para evitar que fueran profanados como trofeos.
Y la escena resulta muy fácil de imaginar.
Roma llena de rumores.
Noticias entrando a la ciudad.
Soldados huyendo.
Puertas cerrándose.
Gente hablando en voz baja.
Y alguien envolviendo cuidadosamente los símbolos de un emperador derrotado mientras fuera el mundo cambiaba para siempre.
Porque eso es lo que realmente ocurrió tras el Puente Milvio.
No solo cayó un hombre.
Cambió el rumbo de Occidente.
Poco después Constantino promulgó el Edicto de Milán, legalizando el cristianismo.
Con el tiempo fundaría Constantinopla y transformaría completamente la estructura política y religiosa del Imperio.Majencio quedó reducido al papel de villano en la historia oficial.
Pero la tierra terminó guardando algo que la propaganda no pudo destruir: las últimas huellas físicas de un emperador que intentó devolverle a Roma su antiguo protagonismo… y perdió.
Hoy esas insignias se conservan en el Museo Nacional Romano, en el Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, como un eco silencioso de aquella guerra civil.
Y quizá eso sea lo más fascinante de toda esta historia.
Que incluso cuando los vencedores intentan borrar a alguien para siempre, a veces el suelo decide recordar.
▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣
▪️𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘭 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦 (𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘦́𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘊𝘳𝘶𝘻, 1961): 𝘚𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘨𝘦́𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘮 (𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘴) 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘰 𝘋𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘶 𝘤𝘶𝘯̃𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭.
▪️𝘌𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰: 𝘕𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢 𝘤𝘰́𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 (𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘭 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦) 𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘪́𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪́𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 (𝘔𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰) 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘭𝘪́𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘢 𝘦𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘰 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘻 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘺𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘗𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘰.#roma #imperioromano #majencio #constantino #historia #arqueologia #antiguaroma #puentemilvio #historiareal #curiosidades #museonacionalromano #palatino #arqueología #ecosdelpasado
-
SIGUE ⬇️
Roma tenía una costumbre brutal con ciertos derrotados.
Intentaba borrarlos de la historia.
Sus nombres eran eliminados de inscripciones, sus estatuas destruidas y sus recuerdos manipulados.
Constantino terminó incluso apropiándose de edificios iniciados por Majencio, como la famosa basílica del Foro.Parecía que Majencio iba a desaparecer completamente bajo la propaganda del vencedor.
Pero casi 1700 años después ocurrió algo inesperado.
En 2005, arqueólogos dirigidos por Clementina Panella excavaban en las laderas del monte Palatino cuando encontraron una cavidad oculta a unos cuatro metros de profundidad.
Dentro había algo extraordinario.
No monedas.
No joyas comunes.
Sino las insignias imperiales completas de Majencio.
Era un descubrimiento casi imposible.
Los arqueólogos encontraron tres cetros imperiales, lanzas ceremoniales, jabalinas de gala, soportes de estandartes y varios símbolos de autoridad envueltos cuidadosamente en lino y seda.
Las telas habían protegido parcialmente las piezas durante siglos.
También aparecieron restos de cajas de madera de álamo donde habían sido escondidas.El objeto más impresionante era uno de los cetros: fabricado en oricalco —una aleación dorada parecida al oro— rematado con pétalos metálicos que sostenían una esfera de vidrio verde oscuro.
El globo simbolizaba el dominio sobre el mundo.Otros cetros llevaban esferas de calcedonia azulada y vidrio amarillo.
Lo increíble es que estas piezas estaban intactas.
No fragmentadas.
No saqueadas.
Completas.Y eso convirtió el hallazgo en algo único.
Hasta entonces esas insignias imperiales solo se conocían por relieves, monedas o esculturas antiguas.
Nadie había encontrado unas reales tan completas pertenecientes a un emperador romano.El descubrimiento abrió además un debate fascinante.
¿Por qué estaban escondidas?
Hay dos teorías principales.
La primera dice que Majencio ordenó ocultarlas antes de la batalla.
Sabía que Constantino avanzaba y quizá entendía que podía perder.
Enterrar las insignias imperiales habría sido una forma desesperada de impedir que el enemigo las usara para legitimarse inmediatamente como nuevo dueño de Roma.La segunda teoría resulta todavía más humana.
Tras la derrota y la exhibición de la cabeza de Majencio, algunos funcionarios o servidores fieles pudieron esconder los objetos apresuradamente para evitar que fueran profanados como trofeos.
Y la escena resulta muy fácil de imaginar.
Roma llena de rumores.
Noticias entrando a la ciudad.
Soldados huyendo.
Puertas cerrándose.
Gente hablando en voz baja.
Y alguien envolviendo cuidadosamente los símbolos de un emperador derrotado mientras fuera el mundo cambiaba para siempre.
Porque eso es lo que realmente ocurrió tras el Puente Milvio.
No solo cayó un hombre.
Cambió el rumbo de Occidente.
Poco después Constantino promulgó el Edicto de Milán, legalizando el cristianismo.
Con el tiempo fundaría Constantinopla y transformaría completamente la estructura política y religiosa del Imperio.Majencio quedó reducido al papel de villano en la historia oficial.
Pero la tierra terminó guardando algo que la propaganda no pudo destruir: las últimas huellas físicas de un emperador que intentó devolverle a Roma su antiguo protagonismo… y perdió.
Hoy esas insignias se conservan en el Museo Nacional Romano, en el Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, como un eco silencioso de aquella guerra civil.
Y quizá eso sea lo más fascinante de toda esta historia.
Que incluso cuando los vencedores intentan borrar a alguien para siempre, a veces el suelo decide recordar.
▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣
▪️𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘭 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦 (𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘦́𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘊𝘳𝘶𝘻, 1961): 𝘚𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘨𝘦́𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘶𝘮 (𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘴) 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘰 𝘋𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘶 𝘤𝘶𝘯̃𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰́𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭.
▪️𝘌𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰: 𝘕𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢 𝘤𝘰́𝘮𝘰 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 (𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘥𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘭 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦) 𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘪́𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪́𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 (𝘔𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰) 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰.
▪️𝘓𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘭𝘪́𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢 𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘢 𝘦𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘰 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘻 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘤𝘪𝘰́𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘺𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘺 𝘭𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘫𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘰 𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘗𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘰.#roma #imperioromano #majencio #constantino #historia #arqueologia #antiguaroma #puentemilvio #historiareal #curiosidades #museonacionalromano #palatino #arqueología #ecosdelpasado
-
I woke up very depressed this morning.
It was like an unwelcome visit from an old nemesis. (I think it may be a brain chemistry response to recent much reduced alcohol intake)
I am riding my beloved #Specialized #Vado again, it was a good idea albeit difficult to instigate: I forced myself before the endless, crushing Sunday morning news cyle (no pun intended) took hold.
#SymoneSandersTownsend on #MSNBC's #TheWeekend made me smile which was enough to pull on my rotund-man lycra shorts and go! -
I woke up very depressed this morning.
It was like an unwelcome visit from an old nemesis. (I think it may be a brain chemistry response to recent much reduced alcohol intake)
I am riding my beloved #Specialized #Vado again, it was a good idea albeit difficult to instigate: I forced myself before the endless, crushing Sunday morning news cyle (no pun intended) took hold.
#SymoneSandersTownsend on #MSNBC's #TheWeekend made me smile which was enough to pull on my rotund-man lycra shorts and go! -
I woke up very depressed this morning.
It was like an unwelcome visit from an old nemesis. (I think it may be a brain chemistry response to recent much reduced alcohol intake)
I am riding my beloved #Specialized #Vado again, it was a good idea albeit difficult to instigate: I forced myself before the endless, crushing Sunday morning news cyle (no pun intended) took hold.
#SymoneSandersTownsend on #MSNBC's #TheWeekend made me smile which was enough to pull on my rotund-man lycra shorts and go! -
I woke up very depressed this morning.
It was like an unwelcome visit from an old nemesis. (I think it may be a brain chemistry response to recent much reduced alcohol intake)
I am riding my beloved #Specialized #Vado again, it was a good idea albeit difficult to instigate: I forced myself before the endless, crushing Sunday morning news cyle (no pun intended) took hold.
#SymoneSandersTownsend on #MSNBC's #TheWeekend made me smile which was enough to pull on my rotund-man lycra shorts and go! -
This thread was originally written and published in March 2024.
For no good reason, I decided to make a chart that shows the changing political make-up of Edinburgh’s municipal government in the last 124 years. It’s a graph whose changing colours and gradients tell lots of different political and historical stories about municipal government in that time, so let’s pick apart 124 years of Edinburgh’s political local history and find out what was going on and why, shall we?
Seat make-up of Edinburgh Town / District / City Council after Municipal Elections, 1920-presentFirst things first, we need to get a few things out of the way. In doing so it helps to avoid coming to the wrong conclusions about the graph and helps to understand what’s going on in the background and how the local electoral system has changed over time.
Until 1974, people voted for the Town Council, which was the elected1 component of what was known formally as the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh but almost universally as just the Corporation. The city was divided up into wards, as it is now, and each ward had three councillors, one of whom was elected each year on rotation. Each councillor served a three year term after which they retired but could stand again for re-election. This meant that voters were expected to vote annually for one councillor, the ballots of which were always held in the first week of November until in 1948 they were shifted to May. If a councillor stepped down or died during their term of office there would either be a by-election or if it was close to the next election then two seats would be up for grabs. Very occasionally, the entire Town Council was up for vote, e.g. after the amalgamation of Edinburgh and Leith in 1920 and when the date of ballots moved from November to May in 1948.
The Town Council in April 1961, the Lord Provost (John Greig Dunbar) and Bailies (senior Magistrates) sit at the head of the meeting. The Labour members are on the left, the Progressives on the right © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn 1974, voters went to the polls to vote for members of the new District Council. The District was the lower tier of municipal government established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Edinburgh, Mid-, East and West Lothian Districts together formed the upper tier; Lothian Regional Council. This new system came into effect on May 16th 1975 and had votes every three (later four) years for the entire council, with a single councillor elected per ward on a first-past-the-post system. In 1995, voters went to the polls for the unitary authority of the City (of Edinburgh) Council as a result of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which abolished the Regional Councils and devolved their powers to new unitary authorities based roughly on the Districts (or closely, in the case of Edinburgh). City Council elections followed the same electoral system as the District until 2007, when the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 changed this to a multi-member ward system, with three or four councillors elected every five years by proportional representation.
n.b. The graphs do not show the results of any intermediate by-elections, or the proportion of votes cast, it only shows the proportion of seats on the council that were held by each political grouping after the election of that year.
1920s. Moderates and Socialists
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1920-30Our graph starts at 1920, when a full Town Council election was held on account of Leith having just been incorporated in to the City under the terms of the Edinburgh Boundaries Extension and Tramways Act 1920. The city was completely dominated at this time by the purple of the Moderates – not a formal party, but a political bloc of small-c conservatives, Liberals, Unionists, Liberal-Unionists and Independents who were strongly aligned to the Church of Scotland and whose purpose was largely to keep the right sort of people running the city and keep the red Socialists2 of Labour out.
Central Edinburgh Constituency Labour Party banner, 1925. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Moderates were effective in the latter purpose but inevitably Edinburgh’s first Labour councillor was elected on November 2nd 1909 when dentist John Alexander Young was returned for the Dalry ward. Although by 1930 Labour had crept slowly up to sixteen councillors – after a jump from 6 to 14 in 1926, (just shy of 1/4 of the Council – there was still no sign of the city “going red” as was threatening in Glasgow. Just peeping in at the top in 1930 is the thin grey line of a single independent councillor, Alexander Thomson, who would shift his allegiance to the Moderates in 1933.
1930s. Progressives and Protestants
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1930-44Between 1930 and 1940 there were two big changes in the Town Council – none of which actually affected who actually ran the City. In 1936 the loose, purple assemblage of the Moderates re-constituted themselves as the dark blue band of the Progressives, a more formally constituted party to counter the threat posed by Labour. On the formation of the Glasgow Progressives, where by now Labour was in control of the Town Council, the Scotsman described them as “an organisation which would effectively combat the Socialist menace, break down the apathy of many citizens, and co-ordinate all Moderate opinion in the city.” The other big change during this time was the brief but rapid rise and fall of the black band of John Cormack’s Protestant Action Society.
The banner of Loyal Orange Lodge no. 188, who style themselves “Cormack’s Protestant Defenders” on parade in Edinburgh, Lodge photo from public facebook group.Protestant Action were an extreme, anti-Catholic organisation whose basic platform was “No Popery“. Cormack made a habit of causing trouble wherever he could, stoking sectarian tensions in overcrowded and underprivileged wards, whipping up his supporters into violence and occasional riots, but always careful to be able to absolve himself of the blame. He formed his party in 1933 and in 1934’s election it got one councillor on 6% of the popular vote. By 1935 it got 21% and three seats, peaking in 1936 with a worrying 31% of the vote and nine seats. But not even Cormack’s force of oratory could hold his unruly grouping together; the established Protestant power of the Orange Order would have little to do with them. They picked fights with the fascists and the communists and then they picked fights amongst themselves. Support for Protestant Action soon waned and in the last pre-war municipal election of 1938 they had dropped back to 12% and 6 seats. John Cormack however would cling on to his seat in South Leith, becoming the “Father of the Council” in 1956 as its longest serving member. This seniority entitled him to the office of Bailie, one that conferred significant authority. He retired in 1961.
Post-war. Labour Rising
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1944-55On the outbreak of war in 1939, the Government suspended municipal elections for the duration and so the Town Council sat, as it was, for the duration. Its representation did change however in 1940 when Dalry Labour councillors David Stephen (1938 election intake) and George Boath (1939 by-election) resigned their party and changed allegiance to the dark red band of the Communists. With no by-elections possible, they continued to serve under this particular banner until elections re-started in 1945 when they were duly voted out at the first opportunity.
Except from “Old Street, Edinburgh” by William Wilson, 1935. A scene looking up the old Elder Street to St. James Square and showing canvassers for the forthcoming general election. CC-by-NC National Galleries ScotlandIn line with the national trend, Labour saw an upsurge in post-war popularity, with its share of 40% of the popular vote translating to an increase to 27 seats, or 40% of the Town Council. This position was reversed in 1949 when they went back to 15 seats and 22% of the popular vote. Again this mirrored popular, national discontent with the Labour government and a recovery in Conservative fortunes. It was not until 1955 that Labour had managed to regain the ground it had lost to the Progressives six years previous, so the political status quo in the city was maintained throughout the decade. Protestant Action lost their seats coming up for re-election in 1945 and 1946, with only John Cormack able to cling on, as the thin black line at the bottom of the graph, from 1947 onwards.
1955-65. Progressive Decline
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1955-65The story of the next ten years was one of a long, slow waning in the fortunes of the Progressives. Throughout the decade Labour was able to make ground against them, until by the 1962 election both parties polled 38.5% of the popular vote, and in 1963 for the first time ever in Edinburgh Labour briefly surpassed the Progressives by this measure, 39.6% vs. 36.0%. But the three year system meant it was a long, slow process to effect political change although Labour had narrowed the gap between them and the Progressives to a single seat (32 vs. 33) by 1964, they were never quite able to bridge it. It cannot be seen in this chart, but in 1965 the Labour local vote collapsed to 27.9%, their worst since 1949, and the Progressives recovered to 58% after a run of five bad years. A new entrant onto the political scene in 1957 was Lady Morton (Hilda Sherwood Morton), who was elected for the orange strip of the Liberals in Merchiston ward. She was the first of her party to do so after it began to stand a few candidates in the city in 1955; by 1963 they had picked up four more for a total of five.
1965-74. End of the Old Order
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1965-74The next ten years following 1965 saw the first big shake-ups on the Edinburgh local political scene beyond the glacially slow 50 year rise of Labour. Most importantly, it was the decade in which party political politics, which had been more or less kept out of Municipal Government for the last 50 years, finally took over. Firstly, in 1962 the Unionist party started standing candidates. This was a centre-right political party that stood for Westminster elections in Scotland and that was aligned to the (English) Conservatives. In other parts of Scotland the National Liberal Party stood; both they and the Unionists took the Conservative whip in the House of Commons. In 1965 the Unionists formally merged with the Conservatives to form the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, joined in 1968 by the National Liberals. Just as the Moderates had given way to the Progressives, so to did the Progressives give way to the Conservatives, but over a much longer timescale. Note that the press had long called both the Progressives and the Unionists “Tories“. Most of the Progressive old guard continued to stand as such, but new candidates stood instead as Conservatives. The result was that after their first candidates were elected in 1962, the light blue band of the Conservatives gradually and seamlessly usurped the old party, which finally died out alongside the long-established Town Council in 1974.
During this period, the Labour party found its position for a while squeezed between the strengthened Tory bloc and the insurgent yellow blob of the Scottish National Party, which enjoyed a brief flurry of popularity after Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory in the 1967 Hamilton by-election. In 1968 they swelled to 35% of the popular local vote in Edinburgh and by 1969 had ten councillors, before rapdily collapsing back to local indifference by 1972 with just 2.9% of the vote. The first Scottish nationalist candidate had stood for the Town Council way back in 1932 but no more stood until 1956-59 when their handful of candidates polled less than 1% of the popular vote.
Jack Kane, Lord Provost of Edinburgh 1972-75; official portrait by Alexander Goudie. True to his down-to-earth form, he has eschewed donning his official robes. He was the first Lord Provost to decline the honorary knighthood that his position conferred. © Museums & Galleries EdinburghBy 1972, the SNP threat had gone, the Progressives were in terminal decline and Labour was recovering, and as a result it finally managed to become the largest party on the council, with 33 seats to the opposition’s 30. It had only taken them 63 years since their first councillor was sworn in! Their leader, Jack Kane, was elected Lord Provost that year, the first Labour holder of that post. With the final elections to the old Town Council in 1973, Labour had 34 seats and finally had a majority!
1974-95. District Days
Edinburgh District Council make-up 1974-95In 1974, the residents of Edinburgh went to the polls to vote for their new District Council, which replaced a system of local Government that had been going in one form or another for the past 700 years or more. Interestingly, although archaic titles such as Lord Provost and Bailie were meant to be swept away, they were kept on as honorific positions. The District Council performed many of the functions of the old Edinburgh Corporation, but strategic issues such as Transport, Education, Regional Planning, Police and Fire were run by the upper tier of Regional Councils.
Lothian Regional Council ghost sign, 20 plus years after that authority ceased to be. Photo © SelfThe results of the first election saw the Conservatives come out as the largest party, with one more seat than Labour. They lacked an overall majority but got it at the next ballot in 1977, with 34 of 67 seats. This marked the high point of the Conservative party in Edinburgh’s local government, and they have been in decline ever since. After the election of 1984, Labour increasingly dominated local politics. At the final District Council election in 1992, they took 30 of 62 seats, with the (by now) Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. But by now there were more than two big parties in local politics and the single member wards with first-past-the-post electoral system did not function fairly. The Liberal Democrats in 1992 got 15% of the popular vote but only 3% of the seats. The SNP got 14% of the vote and no seats! Labour were flattered by the system, getting 48% of the seats on 29% of the vote.
1995-. The Rainbow Council
City of Edinburgh Council make-up 1995-2022It was all change again in 1995, when voters at the local elections now went to choose their City Council, a unitary authority based largely on the boundaries and functions of the old District but with the additional responsibilities of the Regions, which would disappear the following year, also. There was no fundamental changes however; Labour continued to dominate, the Conservatives continued their decline and the Liberal Democrats filled the void for the sort of voter who would once have been religiously Moderate or Progressive but who found they couldn’t bring themselves to vote Conservative due to national issues. By 2003, Labour retained a slim majority (31 of 59 seats), with the Liberal Democrats the next largest bloc on 15.
The SNP had a real problem however – they were reliably getting 15-30% of the popular vote in the Council elections but rarely picked up seats; they gone 1.7% of the seats on 21.5% of the vote in 1999. Labour in contrast had more than 50% of the seats on less than one third of the vote. This democratic deficit was remedied in 2007 when a new system of multi-member wars elected by Single Transferable Vote (proportional representation) was brought in. This had the immediate effect of giving the long-suppressed SNP a huge boost, with one fifth of the popular vote and council seats gained that year. The change was disastrous for Labour however, whose commanding position was built on the shaky foundations of an unrepresentative electoral system and their number of seats more than halved, to one much more in line with their overall popularity. The changes also let in the Scottish Green Party, who after standing candidates in one form or another in the city since 1980 finally picked up 3 seats. Rainbow politics had finally arrived!
The story of the rest of the period covered by our graph is largely now the story of Scottish and British national politics. The Conservatives continued to decline in popularity, but got a post-2014 Independence Referendum boost; the Liberal Democrats were punished heavily in 2012 after their coalition government at Westminster with the former party, and their recovery has been slow and largely concentrated in their traditional base of the west of the city. Labour have been largely unable to capitalise on these changes however – caught between any number of local and national issues – as the SNP and Green popular vote has held up and continued to creep upwards, with a combined 40% in 2017 and 2022.
Portobello political window in 2014. National politics has now come to dominate local politics. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe last local election in 2022 was one fought heavily on manifestos of national issues, despite these not being something that any local Council has any jurisdiction in. As a result, it saw the Conservative turn in their worst ever result for the Moderate-Progressive-Conservative bloc in the 122 years of our graph, with just 18% of the vote and 14% (nine) seats. Labour managed only 19% of the vote and 20% of the seats, their second-worst result in 100 years and yet somehow managed to pull various political strings and favours to run a minority administration; something the SNP failed to have sufficient support from their opposition to do, despite remaining the largest party by both seats and popular vote.
Who knows what 2027 might bring!
- There was an honorary seat on the Town Council for each of the Deacon Conveners (senior office holders) of the Merchant Company and the Incorporated Trades, meaning two members of the Town Council were unelected ↩︎
- The Scotsman perceived the Socialists as an extreme threat to the established order of the city and was strongly and persistently hostile to them in the 1920s through to the 1940s. In its reporting it almost always referred to them as just “the Socialists” ↩︎
If you have found this useful, informative or amusing, perhaps you would like to help contribute towards the running costs of this site (including keeping it ad-free and my book-buying budget) by supporting me on ko-fi. Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends.
These threads © 2017-2024, Andy Arthur
-
Moderates, Progressives, Communists and Protestants: the thread about 122 years of local political change in Edinburgh
For no good reason, I decided to make a chart that shows the changing political make-up of Edinburgh’s municipal government in the last 124 years. It’s a graph whose changing colours and gradients tell lots of different political and historical stories about municipal government in that time, so let’s pick apart 124 years of Edinburgh’s political local history and find out what was going on and why, shall we?
Seat make-up of Edinburgh Town / District / City Council after Municipal Elections, 1920-presentFirst things first, we need to get a few things out of the way. In doing so it helps to avoid coming to the wrong conclusions about the graph and helps to understand what’s going on in the background and how the local electoral system has changed over time.
Until 1974, people voted for the Town Council, which was the elected1 component of what was known formally as the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh but almost universally as just the Corporation. The city was divided up into wards, as it is now, and each ward had three councillors, one of whom was elected each year on rotation. Each councillor served a three year term after which they retired but could stand again for re-election. This meant that voters were expected to vote annually for one councillor, the ballots of which were always held in the first week of November until in 1948 they were shifted to May. If a councillor stepped down or died during their term of office there would either be a by-election or if it was close to the next election then two seats would be up for grabs. Very occasionally, the entire Town Council was up for vote, e.g. after the amalgamation of Edinburgh and Leith in 1920 and when the date of ballots moved from November to May in 1948.
The Town Council in April 1961, the Lord Provost (John Greig Dunbar) and Bailies (senior Magistrates) sit at the head of the meeting. The Labour members are on the left, the Progressives on the right © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn 1974, voters went to the polls to vote for members of the new District Council. The District was the lower tier of municipal government established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Edinburgh, Mid-, East and West Lothian Districts together formed the upper tier; Lothian Regional Council. This new system came into effect on May 16th 1975 and had votes every three (later four) years for the entire council, with a single councillor elected per ward on a first-past-the-post system. In 1995, voters went to the polls for the unitary authority of the City (of Edinburgh) Council as a result of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which abolished the Regional Councils and devolved their powers to new unitary authorities based roughly on the Districts (or closely, in the case of Edinburgh). City Council elections followed the same electoral system as the District until 2007, when the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 changed this to a multi-member ward system, with three or four councillors elected every five years by proportional representation.
n.b. The graphs do not show the results of any intermediate by-elections, or the proportion of votes cast, it only shows the proportion of seats on the council that were held by each political grouping after the election of that year.
1920s. Moderates and Socialists
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1920-30Our graph starts at 1920, when a full Town Council election was held on account of Leith having just been incorporated in to the City under the terms of the Edinburgh Boundaries Extension and Tramways Act 1920. The city was completely dominated at this time by the purple of the Moderates – not a formal party, but a political bloc of small-c conservatives, Liberals, Unionists, Liberal-Unionists and Independents who were strongly aligned to the Church of Scotland and whose purpose was largely to keep the right sort of people running the city and keep the red Socialists2 of Labour out.
Central Edinburgh Constituency Labour Party banner, 1925. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Moderates were effective in the latter purpose but inevitably Edinburgh’s first Labour councillor was elected on November 2nd 1909 when dentist John Alexander Young was returned for the Dalry ward. Although by 1930 Labour had crept slowly up to sixteen councillors – after a jump from 6 to 14 in 1926, (just shy of 1/4 of the Council – there was still no sign of the city “going red” as was threatening in Glasgow. Just peeping in at the top in 1930 is the thin grey line of a single independent councillor, Alexander Thomson, who would shift his allegiance to the Moderates in 1933.
1930s. Progressives and Protestants
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1930-44Between 1930 and 1940 there were two big changes in the Town Council – none of which actually affected who actually ran the City. In 1936 the loose, purple assemblage of the Moderates re-constituted themselves as the dark blue band of the Progressives, a more formally constituted party to counter the threat posed by Labour. On the formation of the Glasgow Progressives, where by now Labour was in control of the Town Council, the Scotsman described them as “an organisation which would effectively combat the Socialist menace, break down the apathy of many citizens, and co-ordinate all Moderate opinion in the city.” The other big change during this time was the brief but rapid rise and fall of the black band of John Cormack’s Protestant Action Society.
The banner of Loyal Orange Lodge no. 188, who style themselves “Cormack’s Protestant Defenders” on parade in Edinburgh, Lodge photo from public facebook group.Protestant Action were an extreme, anti-Catholic organisation whose basic platform was “No Popery“. Cormack made a habit of causing trouble wherever he could, stoking sectarian tensions in overcrowded and underprivileged wards, whipping up his supporters into violence and occasional riots, but always careful to be able to absolve himself of the blame. He formed his party in 1933 and in 1934’s election it got one councillor on 6% of the popular vote. By 1935 it got 21% and three seats, peaking in 1936 with a worrying 31% of the vote and nine seats. But not even Cormack’s force of oratory could hold his unruly grouping together; the established Protestant power of the Orange Order would have little to do with them. They picked fights with the fascists and the communists and then they picked fights amongst themselves. Support for Protestant Action soon waned and in the last pre-war municipal election of 1938 they had dropped back to 12% and 6 seats. John Cormack however would cling on to his seat in South Leith, becoming the “Father of the Council” in 1956 as its longest serving member. This seniority entitled him to the office of Bailie, one that conferred significant authority. He retired in 1961.
Post-war. Labour Rising
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1944-55On the outbreak of war in 1939, the Government suspended municipal elections for the duration and so the Town Council sat, as it was, for the duration. Its representation did change however in 1940 when Dalry Labour councillors David Stephen (1938 election intake) and George Boath (1939 by-election) resigned their party and changed allegiance to the dark red band of the Communists. With no by-elections possible, they continued to serve under this particular banner until elections re-started in 1945 when they were duly voted out at the first opportunity.
Except from “Old Street, Edinburgh” by William Wilson, 1935. A scene looking up the old Elder Street to St. James Square and showing canvassers for the forthcoming general election. CC-by-NC National Galleries ScotlandIn line with the national trend, Labour saw an upsurge in post-war popularity, with its share of 40% of the popular vote translating to an increase to 27 seats, or 40% of the Town Council. This position was reversed in 1949 when they went back to 15 seats and 22% of the popular vote. Again this mirrored popular, national discontent with the Labour government and a recovery in Conservative fortunes. It was not until 1955 that Labour had managed to regain the ground it had lost to the Progressives six years previous, so the political status quo in the city was maintained throughout the decade. Protestant Action lost their seats coming up for re-election in 1945 and 1946, with only John Cormack able to cling on, as the thin black line at the bottom of the graph, from 1947 onwards.
1955-65. Progressive Decline
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1955-65The story of the next ten years was one of a long, slow waning in the fortunes of the Progressives. Throughout the decade Labour was able to make ground against them, until by the 1962 election both parties polled 38.5% of the popular vote, and in 1963 for the first time ever in Edinburgh Labour briefly surpassed the Progressives by this measure, 39.6% vs. 36.0%. But the three year system meant it was a long, slow process to effect political change although Labour had narrowed the gap between them and the Progressives to a single seat (32 vs. 33) by 1964, they were never quite able to bridge it. It cannot be seen in this chart, but in 1965 the Labour local vote collapsed to 27.9%, their worst since 1949, and the Progressives recovered to 58% after a run of five bad years. A new entrant onto the political scene in 1957 was Lady Morton (Hilda Sherwood Morton), who was elected for the orange strip of the Liberals in Merchiston ward. She was the first of her party to do so after it began to stand a few candidates in the city in 1955; by 1963 they had picked up four more for a total of five.
1965-74. End of the Old Order
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1965-74The next ten years following 1965 saw the first big shake-ups on the Edinburgh local political scene beyond the glacially slow 50 year rise of Labour. Most importantly, it was the decade in which party political politics, which had been more or less kept out of Municipal Government for the last 50 years, finally took over. Firstly, in 1962 the Unionist party started standing candidates. This was a centre-right political party that stood for Westminster elections in Scotland and that was aligned to the (English) Conservatives. In other parts of Scotland the National Liberal Party stood; both they and the Unionists took the Conservative whip in the House of Commons. In 1965 the Unionists formally merged with the Conservatives to form the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, joined in 1968 by the National Liberals. Just as the Moderates had given way to the Progressives, so to did the Progressives give way to the Conservatives, but over a much longer timescale. Note that the press had long called both the Progressives and the Unionists “Tories“. Most of the Progressive old guard continued to stand as such, but new candidates stood instead as Conservatives. The result was that after their first candidates were elected in 1962, the light blue band of the Conservatives gradually and seamlessly usurped the old party, which finally died out alongside the long-established Town Council in 1974.
During this period, the Labour party found its position for a while squeezed between the strengthened Tory bloc and the insurgent yellow blob of the Scottish National Party, which enjoyed a brief flurry of popularity after Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory in the 1967 Hamilton by-election. In 1968 they swelled to 35% of the popular local vote in Edinburgh and by 1969 had ten councillors, before rapdily collapsing back to local indifference by 1972 with just 2.9% of the vote. The first Scottish nationalist candidate had stood for the Town Council way back in 1932 but no more stood until 1956-59 when their handful of candidates polled less than 1% of the popular vote.
Jack Kane, Lord Provost of Edinburgh 1972-75; official portrait by Alexander Goudie. True to his down-to-earth form, he has eschewed donning his official robes. He was the first Lord Provost to decline the honorary knighthood that his position conferred. © Museums & Galleries EdinburghBy 1972, the SNP threat had gone, the Progressives were in terminal decline and Labour was recovering, and as a result it finally managed to become the largest party on the council, with 33 seats to the opposition’s 30. It had only taken them 63 years since their first councillor was sworn in! Their leader, Jack Kane, was elected Lord Provost that year, the first Labour holder of that post. With the final elections to the old Town Council in 1973, Labour had 34 seats and finally had a majority!
1974-95. District Days
Edinburgh District Council make-up 1974-95In 1974, the residents of Edinburgh went to the polls to vote for their new District Council, which replaced a system of local Government that had been going in one form or another for the past 700 years or more. Interestingly, although archaic titles such as Lord Provost and Bailie were meant to be swept away, they were kept on as honorific positions. The District Council performed many of the functions of the old Edinburgh Corporation, but strategic issues such as Transport, Education, Regional Planning, Police and Fire were run by the upper tier of Regional Councils. The District also expanded the boundaries of the City to include outlying areas such as Currie, Balerno, Kirkliston and South Queensferry, which had previously been semi-independent Districts (or in the case of Queensferry, a Burgh) within the old Midlothian County (thank you to Paul Cockburn for pointing this fact out).
Lothian Regional Council ghost sign, 20 plus years after that authority ceased to be. Photo © SelfThe results of the first election saw the Conservatives come out as the largest party, with one more seat than Labour. They lacked an overall majority but got it at the next ballot in 1977, with 34 of 67 seats. This marked the high point of the Conservative party in Edinburgh’s local government, and they have been in decline ever since. After the election of 1984, Labour increasingly dominated local politics. At the final District Council election in 1992, they took 30 of 62 seats, with the (by now) Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. But by now there were more than two big parties in local politics and the single member wards with first-past-the-post electoral system did not function fairly. The Liberal Democrats in 1992 got 15% of the popular vote but only 3% of the seats. The SNP got 14% of the vote and no seats! Labour were flattered by the system, getting 48% of the seats on 29% of the vote.
1995-. The Rainbow Council
City of Edinburgh Council make-up 1995-2022It was all change again in 1995, when voters at the local elections now went to choose their City Council, a unitary authority based largely on the boundaries and functions of the old District but with the additional responsibilities of the Regions, which would disappear the following year, also. There was no fundamental changes however; Labour continued to dominate, the Conservatives continued their decline and the Liberal Democrats filled the void for the sort of voter who would once have been religiously Moderate or Progressive but who found they couldn’t bring themselves to vote Conservative due to national issues. By 2003, Labour retained a slim majority (31 of 59 seats), with the Liberal Democrats the next largest bloc on 15.
The SNP had a real problem however – they were reliably getting 15-30% of the popular vote in the Council elections but rarely picked up seats; they gone 1.7% of the seats on 21.5% of the vote in 1999. Labour in contrast had more than 50% of the seats on less than one third of the vote. This democratic deficit was remedied in 2007 when a new system of multi-member wards elected by Single Transferable Vote (proportional representation) was brought in. This had the immediate effect of giving the long-suppressed SNP a huge boost, with one fifth of the popular vote and council seats gained that year. The change was disastrous for Labour however, whose commanding position was built on the shaky foundations of an unrepresentative electoral system and their number of seats more than halved, to one much more in line with their overall popularity. The changes also let in the Scottish Green Party, who after standing candidates in one form or another in the city since 1980 finally picked up 3 seats. Rainbow politics had finally arrived!
The story of the rest of the period covered by our graph is largely now the story of Scottish and British national politics. The Conservatives continued to decline in popularity, but got a post-2014 Independence Referendum boost; the Liberal Democrats were punished heavily in 2012 after their coalition government at Westminster with the former party, and their recovery has been slow and largely concentrated in their traditional base of the west of the city. Labour have been largely unable to capitalise on these changes however – caught between any number of local and national issues – as the SNP and Green popular vote has held up and continued to creep upwards, with a combined 40% in 2017 and 2022.
Portobello political window in 2014. National politics has now come to dominate local politics. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe last local election in 2022 was one fought heavily on manifestos of national issues, despite these not being something that any local Council has any jurisdiction in. As a result, it saw the Conservative turn in their worst ever result for the Moderate-Progressive-Conservative bloc in the 122 years of our graph, with just 18% of the vote and 14% (nine) seats. Labour managed only 19% of the vote and 20% of the seats, their second-worst result in 100 years and yet somehow managed to pull various political strings and favours to run a minority administration; something the SNP failed to have sufficient support from their opposition to do, despite remaining the largest party by both seats and popular vote.
Who knows what 2027 might bring!
- There was an honorary seat on the Town Council for each of the Deacon Conveners (senior office holders) of the Merchant Company and the Incorporated Trades, meaning two members of the Town Council were unelected ↩︎
- The Scotsman perceived the Socialists as an extreme threat to the established order of the city and was strongly and persistently hostile to them in the 1920s through to the 1940s. In its reporting it almost always referred to them as just “the Socialists” ↩︎
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
This thread was originally written and published in March 2024.
For no good reason, I decided to make a chart that shows the changing political make-up of Edinburgh’s municipal government in the last 124 years. It’s a graph whose changing colours and gradients tell lots of different political and historical stories about municipal government in that time, so let’s pick apart 124 years of Edinburgh’s political local history and find out what was going on and why, shall we?
Seat make-up of Edinburgh Town / District / City Council after Municipal Elections, 1920-presentFirst things first, we need to get a few things out of the way. In doing so it helps to avoid coming to the wrong conclusions about the graph and helps to understand what’s going on in the background and how the local electoral system has changed over time.
Until 1974, people voted for the Town Council, which was the elected1 component of what was known formally as the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh but almost universally as just the Corporation. The city was divided up into wards, as it is now, and each ward had three councillors, one of whom was elected each year on rotation. Each councillor served a three year term after which they retired but could stand again for re-election. This meant that voters were expected to vote annually for one councillor, the ballots of which were always held in the first week of November until in 1948 they were shifted to May. If a councillor stepped down or died during their term of office there would either be a by-election or if it was close to the next election then two seats would be up for grabs. Very occasionally, the entire Town Council was up for vote, e.g. after the amalgamation of Edinburgh and Leith in 1920 and when the date of ballots moved from November to May in 1948.
The Town Council in April 1961, the Lord Provost (John Greig Dunbar) and Bailies (senior Magistrates) sit at the head of the meeting. The Labour members are on the left, the Progressives on the right © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn 1974, voters went to the polls to vote for members of the new District Council. The District was the lower tier of municipal government established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Edinburgh, Mid-, East and West Lothian Districts together formed the upper tier; Lothian Regional Council. This new system came into effect on May 16th 1975 and had votes every three (later four) years for the entire council, with a single councillor elected per ward on a first-past-the-post system. In 1995, voters went to the polls for the unitary authority of the City (of Edinburgh) Council as a result of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which abolished the Regional Councils and devolved their powers to new unitary authorities based roughly on the Districts (or closely, in the case of Edinburgh). City Council elections followed the same electoral system as the District until 2007, when the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 changed this to a multi-member ward system, with three or four councillors elected every five years by proportional representation.
n.b. The graphs do not show the results of any intermediate by-elections, or the proportion of votes cast, it only shows the proportion of seats on the council that were held by each political grouping after the election of that year.
1920s. Moderates and Socialists
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1920-30Our graph starts at 1920, when a full Town Council election was held on account of Leith having just been incorporated in to the City under the terms of the Edinburgh Boundaries Extension and Tramways Act 1920. The city was completely dominated at this time by the purple of the Moderates – not a formal party, but a political bloc of small-c conservatives, Liberals, Unionists, Liberal-Unionists and Independents who were strongly aligned to the Church of Scotland and whose purpose was largely to keep the right sort of people running the city and keep the red Socialists2 of Labour out.
Central Edinburgh Constituency Labour Party banner, 1925. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Moderates were effective in the latter purpose but inevitably Edinburgh’s first Labour councillor was elected on November 2nd 1909 when dentist John Alexander Young was returned for the Dalry ward. Although by 1930 Labour had crept slowly up to sixteen councillors – after a jump from 6 to 14 in 1926, (just shy of 1/4 of the Council – there was still no sign of the city “going red” as was threatening in Glasgow. Just peeping in at the top in 1930 is the thin grey line of a single independent councillor, Alexander Thomson, who would shift his allegiance to the Moderates in 1933.
1930s. Progressives and Protestants
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1930-44Between 1930 and 1940 there were two big changes in the Town Council – none of which actually affected who actually ran the City. In 1936 the loose, purple assemblage of the Moderates re-constituted themselves as the dark blue band of the Progressives, a more formally constituted party to counter the threat posed by Labour. On the formation of the Glasgow Progressives, where by now Labour was in control of the Town Council, the Scotsman described them as “an organisation which would effectively combat the Socialist menace, break down the apathy of many citizens, and co-ordinate all Moderate opinion in the city.” The other big change during this time was the brief but rapid rise and fall of the black band of John Cormack’s Protestant Action Society.
The banner of Loyal Orange Lodge no. 188, who style themselves “Cormack’s Protestant Defenders” on parade in Edinburgh, Lodge photo from public facebook group.Protestant Action were an extreme, anti-Catholic organisation whose basic platform was “No Popery“. Cormack made a habit of causing trouble wherever he could, stoking sectarian tensions in overcrowded and underprivileged wards, whipping up his supporters into violence and occasional riots, but always careful to be able to absolve himself of the blame. He formed his party in 1933 and in 1934’s election it got one councillor on 6% of the popular vote. By 1935 it got 21% and three seats, peaking in 1936 with a worrying 31% of the vote and nine seats. But not even Cormack’s force of oratory could hold his unruly grouping together; the established Protestant power of the Orange Order would have little to do with them. They picked fights with the fascists and the communists and then they picked fights amongst themselves. Support for Protestant Action soon waned and in the last pre-war municipal election of 1938 they had dropped back to 12% and 6 seats. John Cormack however would cling on to his seat in South Leith, becoming the “Father of the Council” in 1956 as its longest serving member. This seniority entitled him to the office of Bailie, one that conferred significant authority. He retired in 1961.
Post-war. Labour Rising
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1944-55On the outbreak of war in 1939, the Government suspended municipal elections for the duration and so the Town Council sat, as it was, for the duration. Its representation did change however in 1940 when Dalry Labour councillors David Stephen (1938 election intake) and George Boath (1939 by-election) resigned their party and changed allegiance to the dark red band of the Communists. With no by-elections possible, they continued to serve under this particular banner until elections re-started in 1945 when they were duly voted out at the first opportunity.
Except from “Old Street, Edinburgh” by William Wilson, 1935. A scene looking up the old Elder Street to St. James Square and showing canvassers for the forthcoming general election. CC-by-NC National Galleries ScotlandIn line with the national trend, Labour saw an upsurge in post-war popularity, with its share of 40% of the popular vote translating to an increase to 27 seats, or 40% of the Town Council. This position was reversed in 1949 when they went back to 15 seats and 22% of the popular vote. Again this mirrored popular, national discontent with the Labour government and a recovery in Conservative fortunes. It was not until 1955 that Labour had managed to regain the ground it had lost to the Progressives six years previous, so the political status quo in the city was maintained throughout the decade. Protestant Action lost their seats coming up for re-election in 1945 and 1946, with only John Cormack able to cling on, as the thin black line at the bottom of the graph, from 1947 onwards.
1955-65. Progressive Decline
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1955-65The story of the next ten years was one of a long, slow waning in the fortunes of the Progressives. Throughout the decade Labour was able to make ground against them, until by the 1962 election both parties polled 38.5% of the popular vote, and in 1963 for the first time ever in Edinburgh Labour briefly surpassed the Progressives by this measure, 39.6% vs. 36.0%. But the three year system meant it was a long, slow process to effect political change although Labour had narrowed the gap between them and the Progressives to a single seat (32 vs. 33) by 1964, they were never quite able to bridge it. It cannot be seen in this chart, but in 1965 the Labour local vote collapsed to 27.9%, their worst since 1949, and the Progressives recovered to 58% after a run of five bad years. A new entrant onto the political scene in 1957 was Lady Morton (Hilda Sherwood Morton), who was elected for the orange strip of the Liberals in Merchiston ward. She was the first of her party to do so after it began to stand a few candidates in the city in 1955; by 1963 they had picked up four more for a total of five.
1965-74. End of the Old Order
Edinburgh Town Council make-up 1965-74The next ten years following 1965 saw the first big shake-ups on the Edinburgh local political scene beyond the glacially slow 50 year rise of Labour. Most importantly, it was the decade in which party political politics, which had been more or less kept out of Municipal Government for the last 50 years, finally took over. Firstly, in 1962 the Unionist party started standing candidates. This was a centre-right political party that stood for Westminster elections in Scotland and that was aligned to the (English) Conservatives. In other parts of Scotland the National Liberal Party stood; both they and the Unionists took the Conservative whip in the House of Commons. In 1965 the Unionists formally merged with the Conservatives to form the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, joined in 1968 by the National Liberals. Just as the Moderates had given way to the Progressives, so to did the Progressives give way to the Conservatives, but over a much longer timescale. Note that the press had long called both the Progressives and the Unionists “Tories“. Most of the Progressive old guard continued to stand as such, but new candidates stood instead as Conservatives. The result was that after their first candidates were elected in 1962, the light blue band of the Conservatives gradually and seamlessly usurped the old party, which finally died out alongside the long-established Town Council in 1974.
During this period, the Labour party found its position for a while squeezed between the strengthened Tory bloc and the insurgent yellow blob of the Scottish National Party, which enjoyed a brief flurry of popularity after Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory in the 1967 Hamilton by-election. In 1968 they swelled to 35% of the popular local vote in Edinburgh and by 1969 had ten councillors, before rapdily collapsing back to local indifference by 1972 with just 2.9% of the vote. The first Scottish nationalist candidate had stood for the Town Council way back in 1932 but no more stood until 1956-59 when their handful of candidates polled less than 1% of the popular vote.
Jack Kane, Lord Provost of Edinburgh 1972-75; official portrait by Alexander Goudie. True to his down-to-earth form, he has eschewed donning his official robes. He was the first Lord Provost to decline the honorary knighthood that his position conferred. © Museums & Galleries EdinburghBy 1972, the SNP threat had gone, the Progressives were in terminal decline and Labour was recovering, and as a result it finally managed to become the largest party on the council, with 33 seats to the opposition’s 30. It had only taken them 63 years since their first councillor was sworn in! Their leader, Jack Kane, was elected Lord Provost that year, the first Labour holder of that post. With the final elections to the old Town Council in 1973, Labour had 34 seats and finally had a majority!
1974-95. District Days
Edinburgh District Council make-up 1974-95In 1974, the residents of Edinburgh went to the polls to vote for their new District Council, which replaced a system of local Government that had been going in one form or another for the past 700 years or more. Interestingly, although archaic titles such as Lord Provost and Bailie were meant to be swept away, they were kept on as honorific positions. The District Council performed many of the functions of the old Edinburgh Corporation, but strategic issues such as Transport, Education, Regional Planning, Police and Fire were run by the upper tier of Regional Councils.
Lothian Regional Council ghost sign, 20 plus years after that authority ceased to be. Photo © SelfThe results of the first election saw the Conservatives come out as the largest party, with one more seat than Labour. They lacked an overall majority but got it at the next ballot in 1977, with 34 of 67 seats. This marked the high point of the Conservative party in Edinburgh’s local government, and they have been in decline ever since. After the election of 1984, Labour increasingly dominated local politics. At the final District Council election in 1992, they took 30 of 62 seats, with the (by now) Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. But by now there were more than two big parties in local politics and the single member wards with first-past-the-post electoral system did not function fairly. The Liberal Democrats in 1992 got 15% of the popular vote but only 3% of the seats. The SNP got 14% of the vote and no seats! Labour were flattered by the system, getting 48% of the seats on 29% of the vote.
1995-. The Rainbow Council
City of Edinburgh Council make-up 1995-2022It was all change again in 1995, when voters at the local elections now went to choose their City Council, a unitary authority based largely on the boundaries and functions of the old District but with the additional responsibilities of the Regions, which would disappear the following year, also. There was no fundamental changes however; Labour continued to dominate, the Conservatives continued their decline and the Liberal Democrats filled the void for the sort of voter who would once have been religiously Moderate or Progressive but who found they couldn’t bring themselves to vote Conservative due to national issues. By 2003, Labour retained a slim majority (31 of 59 seats), with the Liberal Democrats the next largest bloc on 15.
The SNP had a real problem however – they were reliably getting 15-30% of the popular vote in the Council elections but rarely picked up seats; they gone 1.7% of the seats on 21.5% of the vote in 1999. Labour in contrast had more than 50% of the seats on less than one third of the vote. This democratic deficit was remedied in 2007 when a new system of multi-member wars elected by Single Transferable Vote (proportional representation) was brought in. This had the immediate effect of giving the long-suppressed SNP a huge boost, with one fifth of the popular vote and council seats gained that year. The change was disastrous for Labour however, whose commanding position was built on the shaky foundations of an unrepresentative electoral system and their number of seats more than halved, to one much more in line with their overall popularity. The changes also let in the Scottish Green Party, who after standing candidates in one form or another in the city since 1980 finally picked up 3 seats. Rainbow politics had finally arrived!
The story of the rest of the period covered by our graph is largely now the story of Scottish and British national politics. The Conservatives continued to decline in popularity, but got a post-2014 Independence Referendum boost; the Liberal Democrats were punished heavily in 2012 after their coalition government at Westminster with the former party, and their recovery has been slow and largely concentrated in their traditional base of the west of the city. Labour have been largely unable to capitalise on these changes however – caught between any number of local and national issues – as the SNP and Green popular vote has held up and continued to creep upwards, with a combined 40% in 2017 and 2022.
Portobello political window in 2014. National politics has now come to dominate local politics. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe last local election in 2022 was one fought heavily on manifestos of national issues, despite these not being something that any local Council has any jurisdiction in. As a result, it saw the Conservative turn in their worst ever result for the Moderate-Progressive-Conservative bloc in the 122 years of our graph, with just 18% of the vote and 14% (nine) seats. Labour managed only 19% of the vote and 20% of the seats, their second-worst result in 100 years and yet somehow managed to pull various political strings and favours to run a minority administration; something the SNP failed to have sufficient support from their opposition to do, despite remaining the largest party by both seats and popular vote.
Who knows what 2027 might bring!
- There was an honorary seat on the Town Council for each of the Deacon Conveners (senior office holders) of the Merchant Company and the Incorporated Trades, meaning two members of the Town Council were unelected ↩︎
- The Scotsman perceived the Socialists as an extreme threat to the established order of the city and was strongly and persistently hostile to them in the 1920s through to the 1940s. In its reporting it almost always referred to them as just “the Socialists” ↩︎
If you have found this useful, informative or amusing, perhaps you would like to help contribute towards the running costs of this site (including keeping it ad-free and my book-buying budget) by supporting me on ko-fi. Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends.
These threads © 2017-2024, Andy Arthur
-
A new year's resolution for me was to make this "the year of the album", an attempt to slow down media intake, appreciate the artist, and intentionally enjoy specific music instead of mass-consuming it.
It has not been easy. There are really terrible albums out there, anchored by one great song. Welp, here I go, back to the mines for more punishment.
-
#Seattle should create a Cannabis Entertainment District modeled after Amsterdam, using the tax revenue to fund a dedicated Humanity Services Village. By siting this village on underutilized SDOT land away from the business corridors and quiet residential neighborhoods, the city can create a safe, welcoming space for those in need without disrupting the local economy or the peace of our communities.
This village would serve as a professional, centralized hub that transforms our currently fragmented social services into a high-efficiency triage system:
Professional Intake: A modest but high-quality facility—similar to a refugee intake center—offering hot showers, meals, mail services, and charging stations.
The "Sift": Professional staff on-site to immediately distinguish between "bad luck" cases (temporary hardship) and "chronic illness" (addiction and mental health) to ensure people get the specific help they need.
Service Saturation: A mandate that all city-funded non-profits, churches, and community organizers consolidate their outreach at this single location to end the "scattershot" approach.
Agile Infrastructure: Built using cheap, movable, and modular units to keep costs low and allow the city to remain flexible as needs change.
-
https://www.europesays.com/ro/156848/ Ministrul Sănătății merge în Statele Unite unde se va întâlni cu reprezentanții Pfizer/ Cum speră să transforme Guvernul pierderea financiară de pe urma vaccinurilor într-un beneficiu #AlexandruRogobete #BreakingNews #BreakingNews #CeleMaiPopulareSubiecte #FeaturedNews #FeaturedNews #Headlines #LatestNews #LatestNews #MinistrulSănătății #News #RO #Română #Romania #Romanian #Știri #Titluri #TopStories #TopStories #washington
-
Dronele, necesare urgent, pe care 🇷🇴#România ar urma să le producă împreună cu 🇺🇦#Ucraina întârzie — surse.
Contractul ratează prima componentă SAFE.
Probleme de comunicare cu #Bruxellesul.
